TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacture of Tractors, Engines and Parts thereof falling under Chapters 84 and 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA 1985). Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is permitted to sell a portion of similar goods in DTA at concessional rate of duty in terms of Foreign Trade Policy 2009 - 2014 read with Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003. During scrutiny of ER-2 returns of the appellant for the period August 2008 to March 2012, it was noticed that the appellant has cleared stationary engines to DTA for use in the construction equipment, water pumps etc. classifiable under CETH 84089010 on payment of duty at concessional rate of 3.75% with 2% education cess and 1% SHE cess vide Sl.No. 2 of Notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant is before this forum. 3. Shri S. Murugappan, Ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri Anoop Singh, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 3.1 Shri S. Murugappan the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that being a EOU the Green Card issued to them under Chapter 6 of the FTP (RE-2012)/ 2009-14, is for manufacture and clearance of engines in general and further, definition given in Customs Valuation Rules with regard to similar goods cannot be adopted for interpretation of the expression "similar goods" as it appears in the Foreign Trade Policy. The Green Card issued to the appellants is for engines in general i.e. "Tractors, Engines and Parts thereof" and not for any specific type of engines. All engi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een stated that 'similar goods' would be based on the definition as provided in the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 1988 (CVR 1988). Further the appellant has not registered themselves for manufacture and clearance of stationary engines in DTA during 2008-09. On perusal of ER 2 returns it is seen that the appellant had classified stationary engines manufactured by them under CETH 8408 9010 and engines for tractor under CETH 8408 2020, hence it is clear that the engines manufactured are classified as per their usage. Hence the goods are not similar and the appeal may hence be rejected. 4. We have heard both the parties to the dispute and have also carefully gone through the appeal memorandum. We find that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otification No. 23/2003-CE has defined "similar goods", it may not be correct to seek its meaning in CVR 1988. As stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagatram Ahuja vs. C.I.T. [AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3195 / (2000) 246-ITR-609] "The words and expressions defined in one statute as judicially interpreted do not afford a guide to the construction of the same words or expressions in another statute unless both the statutes are pari materia legislations or it is specifically provided in one statute to give the same meaning to the words as defined in another statute." We find that the aim and object of the two legislations, namely, the FTDR Act and the Customs Act are not similar. They operate in their own spheres. The former provides a fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be to choose that which fits, plainly, situationally, objectively, contextually and in terms of the constitutional vision and doctrines emanating out of the Constitution of India which is the "Mother Statute". The nature of the legislation; the purpose of the legislation; the context of the use of the particular word; etc. are among the guiding factors as may appeal to judicial prudence. The object and purpose of the legislation which is subjected to the process of interpretation or construction, has necessarily to be taken into consideration." (Emphasis added) 7. We find that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority at para 17. Of the impugned order has made the following observation. "17. I notice from the write up of the engines, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pment were electrical appliances. There was no dispute on that. It is also clear that these are normally used in household and similar appliances used in hotels etc. The expression "similar" is a significant expression. It does not mean "identical" but it means corresponding to/resembling to in many respects; somewhat like; or having a general likeness. The statute does not contemplate that the goods classified under the words of "similar description" shall be in all respects the same. If it did, these words would be unnecessary. These were intended to embrace goods but not identical with those goods. If the item for similar appliances which are normally used in the household, these will be taxable under tariff item 33C." (emphasis added) &....