2004 (1) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals arise from a common Order-in-Appeal No. C. Cus. 479 to 483/98, dated 21-5-98. The appellants-exporters are holding licence for supply of garments. In terms of the Notification No. 81/95-Cus., dated 31-3-1995 they imported hangers for exporting garments. The Commissioner has denied the benefit on the ground that the importer has to be a job worker and he has found that the appellants are only....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not be denied the benefit solely on the ground that they are not doing jobbing work. It is contended that they are getting manufacture the garments from the job workers and they also manufacture the same. Therefore the interpretation placed by the Commissioner's on the wording of the notification is not in terms of the judgment rendered on the interpreting a notification. Ld. DR defended the order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he explanation (ii) of the notification includes hangers and packing materials. There is no dispute placed by the Commissioner with regard to the hanger being included in the terms "goods" given in the explanation (ii) of the notification. We also note that this very issue was considered by this Bench in the case of Sapthagiri Leathers v. CC, Chennai reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 559 (Tri. - Chenn....