Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 10 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(92)ELT166(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 4150/88-BCH, dated 16-12-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).
2. The Appellants claimed to have imported one second hand pile cutting machine for Knitted Fabrics. They claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 16/85, dated 1-2-1985 on the ground that the machine was pile cutting machine for knitted fabrics by filing refund claim. This refund claim was rejected by authorities below. Collector (Appeals) held though the goods were declared as pile cutting machine for knitted fabrics in proforma invoice, the Bill of Entry and photocopy of the L/C., the goods are not described as pile cutting machines for knitted fabrics in leaflet and Chartered Engineer's Certificate.
3. Arguing on behalf of the appellants the ld. Counsel submits that Bill of Entry clearly describes the goods as one second hand pile cutting machine for knitted fabrics. This description has not been challenged by the Revenue. What was germane to the issue was the finding whether the pile cutting machine was for knitted fabric. The Assistant Collector, however, while relying on the catalogue has recorded that it refers to synthetic pile fabrics, not knitted fabrics. Ld. Counsel submits that they are also synthetic fabrics and the mere fact that the literature may refer to these cannot exclude knitted fabrics from the purview of synthetic fabrics.
4. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. DR submits that once they declared these machines as pile cutting machines for knitted fabrics and the claim for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 16/85 was rejected they ought to have gone in appeal. They have to produce evidence that in fact the impugned goods were for knitted fabrics only.
5. We have heard both sides. We find that the Bill of Entry described goods as "One second hand pile cutting machine for knitted fabrics." This has been accepted by the Collector (Appeals). On going through the catalogue presented by the ld. Counsel we find that the catalogue refers to this machine for shearing synthetic pile fabrics .It also indicates that Electrofinishers and shearing machines suitable for finishing carpets, foams, acrylics at high production rates. It is contended before us by the ld. Counsel that the appellants manufacture knitted fabrics and high class hosiery knitted fabrics and textiles. We are also satisfied that synthetic fabrics would also include knitted fabrics as would be evident from the literature submitted by the ld. Counsel. Socks, sweaters, etc. are common examples. In view of this therefore and the fact that the Bill of Entry has given complete description as pile cutting machine for knitted fabrics and this description has not been challenged we hold that the appellants are eligible for benefit under Notification No. 16/85-Cus., dated 1-2-1985. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.