Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Krm International Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 19 May, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. C/343/2003
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No.449/2003 dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. KRM International Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Smt. Prameela, Advocate, for the Appellants Shri T.H. Rao, SDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 19.05.2010 Date of Decision: 19.05.2010 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The authorities below have confirmed a demand of duty of Rs.3,73,395/- and imposed penalty and denied DEEC benefits to the goods in question namely off-white leather cow lining which is the product under export, on the ground that it would not qualify for the definition of finished leather and instead attracts duty @ 60% in terms of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The basis of the finding is that the goods are not finished leather as they do not satisfy the norms as per CLRI test report dated 28.5.2001. The reason given in the report is that the sample failed to satisfy the norms and conditions due to absence of dyeing imparting medium / dark shade.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that in the case of off-white/white leather the processes required as per Public Notice No. 3-ETC (PN) 9297 dated 27.5.1992 are levelling, combination tanning, fat liquoring, setting, staking/boarding, producing a clean flesh side by mechanical means, protective coat and plating/embossing or ironing/polishing. None of the operations stipulate the process of dyeing. Since the goods in dispute are admittedly off-white leather, the learned counsel for the appellant is correct in her submission based on the Public Notice that in the case of disputed goods, dyeing so as impart medium/dark shade is not required. We are, therefore, satisfied that the goods conform to the definition of finished leather, and therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3