Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Customs vs Interfit Techno Products on 27 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(93)ELT260(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the benefit of exemption Notification 56/95 in respect of moulds imported by appellants.
2. Shri V. Thyagaraj, the learned SDR for the department in this connection has referred us to the wording of the Notification and urged that the concession is available only in respect of moulds and other specified items enumerated in the Notification only if the same are produced within a factory where these are used for captive consumption. In this connection he has referred us to the budget instructions when this Notification was issued wherein it is clearly stated that the earlier exemption available even when the goods were purchased from outside had been withdrawn and the concession made available is only in the event of in house manufacture and consumption. He has referred us to page 89 of the Central Excise Tariff 1995-96 by CENTAX Publications, R.K. Jain.
3. Shri Raghavan, learned Counsel for the respondents has pleaded that in terms of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, countervailing duty is levied equivalent to the duty leviable on similar goods manufactured in India. He has pleaded that the goods in question when exempted from Central Excise levy under certain condition would be entitled to exemption even when the same are imported and are used likewise . He urged that by virtue of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 the imported goods are deemed to be manufactured by the importer.
4. We have considered the plea made by both the sides. We observe that the wording of the Notification are clear that the benefit of the Notification 56/95 is available only in the contingency where the moulds are produced within the factory and thereafter used within the same factory. The intention of the legislature is clear from the budget instructions which were issued and referred to above wherein the following has been set out:
The existing full exemption from excise duty has been continued on :
(i) IC engines, jets and aero engines produced by HAL for defence, cast alloy permanent magnets for defence purpose, storage batteries for vehicles manufactured in Ordnance factories and underwater batteries for Indian Navy in new Notification Nos. 63/95-C.E. and 64/95-C.E.
(ii) PD Pumps primarily designed for handling water and it's specified parts, Hand pumps and parts, Bicycle pumps and parts. Ingot moulds captively consumed. Braille typewriters, Horticultural and agricultural appliances and parts, Printing frames captively consumed. Gravure printing cylinders and nickel perforated rotary cylinder screens if captively used, Lithographic plates if used captively for printing purposes, Engraved copper rollers or cylinders for use in the Textile Industry, printing blocks and printing types, Briquetting plant and machinery for manufacture of briquette, from agricultural and municipal wastes, sand moulds used in the manufacture of steel castings, jigs, fixtures, moulding boxes etc. when captively consumed. Bicycle valves and its components, Vacuum and gas filled bulbs (of value less than Rs. 10 per piece), Diesel generating sets assembled at site of installation by Notification No. 56/95.
Existing full exemption from excise duty is removed on items which shall now attract merit rate. These are:
(i) Fuel less pumps
(ii) Jigs, fixtures, moulding boxes, ingot moulds etc. if procured from outside the factory of consumption.
We have come across notifications where exemption from excise levy has been granted in the event of the use of the goods for a particular notified finished product and wherein for use of the same in places other than the place of production, by following the Chapter X procedure is also allowed. In those cases, the settled position in law is that in case of the imported goods, in case it is shown that the same are used for intended purpose, the benefit of notification would be available. In the present case, the wording of the notification are restricted and the notification envisages concession only in a contingency where the goods are produced and used in the same factory. The budget instructions can be taken to be in the nature of contemporanea exposita. The learned Counsel's plea that by reason of Section 3 a fiction having been created the moulds imported can be taken to be the manufacture of a particular importer does not flow from the wording of Section 3. This section only provides for the measure of duty to be charged in respect of goods imported. Apart from the measure prescribed in the tariff read with Customs Act, 1962, we are not able to read anything more in it. It is well settled principle of law that a notification has to be interpreted strictly. In the present case, as per the wordings of the notification, the appellants' goods do not come within the purview of the notification and for that reason therefore, the concession will not be available. In the circumstances, the lower authority was in error while interpreting the scope of the notification. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CCE (Appeal) and allow the appeal of the revenue.