TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... differential duty of Rs. 15,57,235/- under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant company under Section 112(a) the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned order. 3.Shri B. V. Kumar, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. 4.The learned Advocate urged the following points : (i) The Show Cause Notice is barred by limitation, as the demand for duty has been made in April, 2004 in respect of the imports made during the period from April, 1999 to February, 2003. There is no evidence for suppression of facts or any mis-declarations. The description of the impugned goods and their classifications has been correctly mentioned in the relevant bills of entry and other documents. There is no allegation that the impugned machines do not figure in List 10, List 17, List 18 and List 30 of the relevant Notifications. Moreover, the appellants addressed letters dated 15-3-2003 and 20-6-2003 to the Commissioner with regard to claiming for the benefit under the Notification. They were also under the bona fide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacture of yarn or fabrics. The Chapter Headings under Chapter 84 cover a wide range of machinery, right from the stage of extruding, drawing, texturing or cutting man-made fabrics, till they are finished and are stitched into ready-made garments. The ready-made garments are ready to be exported are sold in the domestic market only after washing, dry cleaning and pressing. For administrative convenience, many large textiles units often engage the service of job workers to undertake some incidental work like stain removing, dry cleaning, washing, calendaring, and pressing. Hence, it is not correct to observe that only large textile units are eligible for the benefit of the said Notifications, when the activities of such job workers, using the impugned machines also relate to activities of textiles units. (vi) A perusal of letters/delivery challans/bills collected from various customers reveals that the impugned goods are being used for doing job work for garment manufacturers-Exporters. In such cases, it cannot be said that the said goods are not being used for required for textile industry. (vii) In the catena of decisions, the Apex Court as well as the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... listed in List 30 so long as they are capable of use in Textile industry and eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 250 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (viii) In view of the above submissions, the Tribunal may allow the appeal. 5.While reiterating the impugned order, the learned JDR relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Handicraft Exports - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 6 (SC), wherein the court while interpreting the words "used in leather industry", in the context of Notification No. 29/79-Cus., dated 10-2-1979 held that the importer will have to prove that the goods were not only capable of being utilised as embellishment for shoes but also that they were imported for that purpose. 6.We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The relevant Notifications contain a table appended to them covering the description of the goods, which are exempted along with Chapter or Heading or Sub-Heading. Further, the rates of duty are also indicated. The last column of the table contains the condition number, which should be fulfilled while obtaining the benefit of the Notification. The conditions are given in the Annexure to the Notification. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on has to be fulfilled. In the Annexure, which lists the condition, we find that Condition 5 reads as follows: "If the importer follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996." Hence, if the parts are imported, the specified condition has to be fulfilled. As regards machinery or equipment, it is sufficient if they are listed in List 30. There is no need to prove that such machineries have actually been used in the textile industry. In the present case, according to the records, some dry cleaning machineries have been sold to buyers who are dry cleaners, agro processors. The garment calendaring machine has been supplied to laundry and dry cleaners. The appellants have contended that a narrow interpretation should not be given to the words "for use in textile industry", as sometimes they have to give the goods to job workers for certain operations. We agree with this view. Before exports, it may be necessary to wash and dry-clean the garments. In such cases the dry cleaners may use the dry cleaning machine, which are listed in List 30. We cannot deny the benefit holding that a dry cleaning ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r use for testing of LSIV/LSI Circuit Micro Assembly …. and the benefit has to be extended. In view of difference of opinion, the case was referred to the third Member who agreed with the view of the Member Judicial and held that the Notification benefit is available if it is required for the manufacture and there is no need that it should be actually used in view of absence of any end-use condition in the Notification. The ratio of the above case is squarely applicable to the present case. In the above mentioned case, the Tribunal relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (supra). 6.3In the case of Asean Trading Agency v. CC (supra), the benefit of exemption under Notification 224/85-Cus., dated 9-7-1985 was the main issue. When the departmental representative contended quoting Addl. Collector' s decision that the appellants are not actual users engaged in leather industry but are only stockists for sale, therefore, the Notification does not apply, the tribunal did not agree. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the Dalmia Dadri case the tribunal observed as-follows : 15.The learned D.R. has contended, as has the Addi....