1997 (2) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dustry. The Assistant Collector held that the goods were for use in the textile industry and, therefore, the benefit of the notification could not be availed of by the appellants. 2.The Collector of Customs on appeal held `printing industry' in the notification was broad enough to take in printing done in the textile mills. 3.On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was using rubber blankets in the textile printing units. Therefore, these rubber blankets were not used in printing presses. It was pointed out that the rubber blankets used by the appellants in the textile printing units were not interchangeable with those used in the printing presses. The relevant Notification No. 169/77-Cus., dated 6-8-1977 is as under : "In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s'. 6.It is further contended that the Government of India itself has recognised this position and, by a subsequent notification, has enlarged the scope of the Notification dated 6-8-1977. 7.The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has drawn our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 793 (S.C.) = (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 293. There the question was of construction of a notification which dealt with "all products of printing industry, including newspapers and printed periodicals". In that case, it was argued that printed packages should be treated as a product of printing industry and the benefit of the notification under consideration in ....