Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Diamant Board India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 21 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(119)ELT429(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for determination in this appeal is eligibility to Notification 207/88 (till it was amended to 63/91 on 20-5-1991) to parts of saw blades manufactured by the appellant. The notification as it stood before the amendment exempted handsaws and blades for saws of all kinds (including slitting, slotting and toothless saw blades). In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has denied the notification to parts of the blades on the ground that the notification did not exempt the parts of blades. These were included in the notification only by the amendment in May 1991.
2. Appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice to it at the designated address. We have therefore proceeded to decide the appeal after reading the relevant papers and hearing the departmental representative.
3. The contention in the appeal the notification should be read as if parts of the statute, for winch proposition of the Supreme Court judgment in CCE v. Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 is cited; same words occurring in different leading number giving same meaning the goods exempted by the notification are identical in words in terms with the goods specified in heading 82.02 of the Tariff as it stand to. The parts of these goods were classifiable within the same heading. These includes parts of these goods classifiable in the same heading and the subsequent amendment is clarificatory and therefore retrospective.
4. The departmental representative points out that the exemption notification should be construed strictly. As it stood at the relevant time it did not include parts. Apart from that parts were classifiable under Heading 82.02 not because of the words of the notification, but by virtue of Note (2) to Chapter 82.
5. We are inclined to agree with the contents of the departmental representative. It is now settled that it is in up to the claimant to the exemption to show that the falls within the bounds - Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769. Apart from this, the words of Heading 82.02 did not themselves include parts of saw blades. We have noted that but for Note (2) to Chapter 82, the parts would not have been classifiable under this heading. Hence the fact that the words of the heading and the exemption notification tally, does not justify the conclusion that parts would (in the absence of chapter note) be classifiable under heading and be covered by the notification. It is also settled law that the provisions of the notes to a chapter in the Tariff cannot be applied in construing the exemption notification. As the notification stood (before it was amended) it cannot be concluded that it included parts of saw blades. The amending notification issued in 1991 which exempted parts also would not take effect prior to the date of which its issue.)
6. We therefore see no reason to interfere and dismiss the appeal.