TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. Further, the appellants wanted to refine the imported crude palm oil by utilising the facility available at the refinery owned by the M/s. K.T.V. Oil Mills on job work basis. They applied to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for issue of registration certificate for availing the concessional rate of Customs duty. The lower authority rejected the application on the ground that the registration certificate under Rule 3(1) of the Customs (Imported Goods Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 can be issued to a Manufacturer whose factory is under the jurisdiction of the office and the appellants do not have a factory of their own and as there is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms side also because the Rules on the excise side are puri materia with those on the customs side. (iv) The exemption under the Notification is dependent upon the use of the imported goods and the use is with reference to the manufacture of any excisable commodity. Hence the instructions that are applicable for such manufacture in the parallel excise Rules would be equally applicable to the imported goods. Under the Excise Law and Rules, if a person does not have a factory of his own, he is permitted to send the goods procured duty free outside for completion of manufacture. It would be illogical to say that an importer under the parallel rules in the Customs side should be having his own factory and is not permitted to send th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o gets his goods manufactured on his own account from other persons meaning thereby utilising the infrastructure of others. (viii) Though it was brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) that in identical cases Registration has been given by the Chennai Commissionerate, he has ignored the same. The Chennai Commissionerate after taking the decision informed CBEC who appear to have accepted the Chennai practice. (ix) The fact that the factory at which the appellants is going to use the imported oil is already registered or not is not relevant to the granting of another fresh registration. 5. The ld. SDR reiterated the Order-in-Appeal. He also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Panacea Biotech m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the concessional assessment under the above Notification. If the importer uses the imported goods in a factory belonging to some other person he would not be entitled for the concessional assessment. The Tribunal's decision in the Panacea Bio-tech Ltd. case relied on by the Commissioner has broadly followed the above line of argument. In our view, the above approach is not at all in consonance with the philosophy of liberalisation and globalisation embraced by the Government of India in all its policies relating to Customs, Excise and Foreign Trade as revealed in a plethora of policy documents, legislation, and procedures. In the Exim Policy actual user includes a person who utilises the imported goods for his own use in another unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with regard to clubbing of clearances. The expression "his factory" should be interpreted to mean the factory where the importer wants to utilise the imported goods in terms of the Notification. The Department can not insist on ownership of the factory and deny registration for the purposes of the Notification. The Tribunal, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Electronic Research Ltd. cited by the ld. Advocate, has held that literal meaning of statute should be abandoned if it leads to unjustified results. In that case, goods imported under Concessional rate of duty for use in one factory were transferred to the factory of the importer at another place under certain circumstances. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided ....