2007 (8) TMI 513

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....P.S. Suri, Jt. CDR and A.K. Madan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. -  A claim for customs duty exemption is the subject of this appeal. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of fabrics. It imported "One set of Weft Straightening Machine Type RMM and Weft Scanner and Controller Orthomat, Type FMC-10A C" and claim concessional Customs Duty Assessment u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tening and calendering machine" was substituted. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that it is clear from the past notification that the intension was to grant exemption to both the machines in question. It is also the contention that there is no combined machine for weft straightening and calendaring as these two processes occur at different stages of textile processing. R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is carried out between weft straightening and calendering processes. 4. The learned Counsel has a submission that reading the notification as covering only a combination machine would render the entry nugatory as no such combination machine exists and benefit will not be available to the textile industry. The submission is that it is well settled that a statutory provision, including exemp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ired. And no machine undertaking both the processes in a combined manner exists. In this factual situation, combining of the entry into one in the successor notifications can be understood only as continuing with the exemption to both the machines, which perform the functions separately and not to a combination machine. Clearly, the combined entry is not a recognition of technological change but o....