Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Customs vs S.C.M. International on 30 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(168)ELT102(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. All these five stay applications along with the five main appeals are taken up together for final disposal as the issue has already been decided by this Bench in favour of the as-sessees and against the Revenue. Therefore, we reject all the 5 stay applications filed by the Revenue and proceed to take up the main issue as per law.
2. All the five appeals are directed against various Order-in-Appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who were allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of the lower authority by following the judgments rendered by this Bench vide Final Order Nos. 1043-1067/2002, dated 17-9-2002 [2002 (148) E.L.T. 1065 (Tribunal)] in the case of Premina Exports and 24 Ors. v. CCE, Chennai wherein the Tribunal had examined in detail the scope of the explanation "goods required for the manufacture of as it appears in Notification No. 29/97-Cus., dated 1-4-97 and the Tribunal had given the benefit of the Notification on various machineries like Circular Knitting Machine, Dyeing Machines, etc., which were held to be ultimately required in export of garments.
3. Aggrieved by these orders, the Department has come in appeal on the ground that they have sent a proposal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs to file appeals against the order of the Tribunal and the Department has not accepted the judgment rendered by the Tribunal.
4. Ld. DR. Shri A. Jayachandran reiterates the ground and submits that they have not accepted the order of the Tribunal and have sent proposals to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of the Tribunal.
5. Ms. Monika Naidu, Advocate appear on behalf of the Respondents namely M/s. Twowin Exports and M/s. S.C.M. International and in respect of other three respondents none appeared on their behalf to defend their cases and therefore their cases are also taken up for final disposal after waiving the pre-deposit in view of the fact that all the cases are covered and decided in favour of the assessees.
6. Ms. Monika Naidu for the appellants has invited our attention to the judgments rendered by this Bench in the case of CC v. Banu Rekha Fashion and Ors. vide Final Order Nos. 385 to 390/2003, dated 23-5-2003 and submits that this Bench while rendering the above judgment has relied on the judgment rendered by the ERB, Kolkata in the case of Rupa & Co. v. CC, Kolkata reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 562 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 953; Premina Exports and 24 others reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1065 (T) = 2002 (53) RLT 197 and in the case of Ruia Cotex Ltd, v. CC (Air Cargo), NCH, New Delhi reported in 2002 (103) ECR 925. She, therefore, submits that the appeals filed by the department may be rejected by sustaining the orders of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as the issue is already covered by various judgments passed by this Bench and other co-ordinated Benches.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and find that all the Respondents/Assessees have imported Circular knitting machine, Dyeing Machines, etc., and it has been held by this Bench as well as other co-ordinated Benches that they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 29/97-Cus., dated 1-4-97 and since they are imported by manufacturers' of garments and they are meant for manufacture of garments which are ultimately exported. We have taken up this view in the case of Premina Exports and 24 Ors. v. CCE reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1065 (T) = 2002 (53) RLT 197 and in the case of Geethalaya Exports v. CC, Tricky reported in 2003 (162) E.L.T. 590 (T) = 2003 (54) RLT 799 by following the judgments rendered by the ERB, Kolkota in the case of Rupa & Co, (supra). We also observe that proposals alone are reported to have been sent to the CBEC for filing appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment rendered by this Bench as well as other co-ordinated Benches. There is nothing on record that they have filed an appeal and such appeal has been admitted and stay obtained. Since it is only a proposal, and no stay against the order of this Bench as well as other co-ordinated Benches have been obtained, we do not consider it necessary to take note of such proposed action by the Revenue. In view of the consistent decision taken by this Bench following the judgment rendered by other co-ordinated Benches, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. Therefore, we reject all the five appeals filed by the Revenue by sustaining the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Stay Applications are also disposed off. Ordered accordingly.