TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igures under the description "insoles, midsoles and sheets thereof" figuring in Sl. No. 108 of List 3 (A)(3) in Notification No. 20/99 which replaced the earlier Notification. The same reads : TABLE S. No. Chapter or heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of Goods Standard Rate Additional Duty rate Condition No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 108. 64 or any other The following goods for use in the leather industry, namely : chapter (1) Parts, consumables and other items specified in List 3(A) 20% -- -- (2) Other parts, consumables and items specified in List 3(B) 20% -- 14 xxx xxxx xxx xxxx LIST 3(A) (Sec. S. No. 108 of the Table) PARTS, CONSUMABLES AND OTHER ITEMS (1) Leather, plastic, rubber coco board, masonite board or plastic board, heels with or without rubber/PVC top lift (2) Toe caps and counters for leather footwear (3) Insoles or midsoles and sheets therefor (4) Welts made from leather or plastic (5) shoes eyelets (6) Felt sleeves (7) Heel tips e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant the decision is still awaited. 5.Appellant received a consignment of PU coated insoles sheets for leather fabrics at Chennai in June, 1999. Revenue ("the respondent" herein) denied the benefit of the Notification No. 20/99. Appellant waived show cause notice and the personal hearing and placed submissions before the adjudicating authority based on the earlier imports by it and the order passed by the Commissioner therein. The adjudicating authority held that though the end use of the subject goods was established, but denied the benefit of the Notification No. 20/99 to the appellant on the ground that the subject goods were not "sheets" but "films" or "running sheets" and therefore, not entitled to the exemption from customs duty. For this adjudicating authority relied upon the judgment of this Court in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. K. Mohan and Company Exports, 1989 (2) SCC 337. Aggrieved by the above, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench at Chennai (for short "the Tribunal") which was numbered as C/457 of 1999 and that has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 25-4-2000. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n between being in rolls or loose sheets. The judgment of this Court in M/s. K. Mohan and Company Exports (supra) is distinguishable as in the said case subject goods were film rolls and the Court brought out the distinction between "films, foils and sheets" as well as the contrast between "sheets" and "sheetings". The said judgment has no applicability to the present case which on the other hand is directly covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Plast Fabs v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (66) E.L.T. 441 wherein the Tribunal specifically dealt with "PVC flocked sheets in rolls". It was further contended that the issue as to whether the subject goods imported in rolls had already been the subject matter of several judicial pronouncements, some of them between the parties, were binding on the revenue as the same had attained finality. 7.As against this the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the judgment of this Court in M/s. K. Mohan and Company Exports (supra) was fully applicable to the facts of the present case and in view of this judgment which is later in point the earlier judgments rendered by the Tribunal or the Commissioner interpreting the Not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d only as "sheetings" and not "sheets". The assessee's claim for refund was accepted by the Tribunal. It was held that the goods imported by the assessee were articles made of plastic. The subject goods were 'films' and did not fall in any of the excepted articles enumerated in the table annexed to the Notification. 11.In the appeal this Court keeping in view that the articles in question were recognized in the trade as "films" rejected the contention of the revenue that the same were either "foils" or "sheets". Assessee's contention was accepted. It was observed that it was difficult to imagine any person going to the market and asking for the films by describing them either as 'foils' or as 'sheets'. The alternative submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee in the said case that a film of indefinite length and not in the form of individual cut pieces can be more appropriately described as "sheetings" rather than "sheets" was accepted. It was observed that the Indian Standard Institution also defines 'sheets' as a piece of plastic 'sheeting' produced as an individual piece rather than in a continuous length or cut as an individual piece from a continuous length. 12.....