Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Srf Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Sea) on 30 January, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI Appeal No.C/526/2005 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.No.564/2005 dated 26.8.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), Chennai] SRF Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Chennai Respondent Appearance: Shri C. Saravanan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM : Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member Date of hearing / decision : 30.01.2017 FINAL ORDER No.40120/2017 Per D.N. Panda Appellant's grievance is that the common parts specifically appearing in the Bill of Entry and imported shall enjoy the exemption benefit under Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dt. 1.3.2002. 2. Inviting attention to page-4 of the appeal memo, ld. counsel says that intention of the legislature while granting the exemption is as under : Sl.No. Chapter or Heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Standard rate Additional duty rate Condition No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 425 84 or any other chapter The following goods for use in man-made or synthetic fibre or any industry namely :- (1) Machinery or equipment specified in List 45; (2) Part for manufacture of the goods at (1) above 5% ----
5 *** *** Condition No.5 If the importer follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996.
3. According to the appellant, the spare parts came was meant for manufacture of synthetic fibre. Therefore, it should enjoy the duty exemption. But, intention of the exemption notification does not subscribe to the proposition of the appellant since the parts stated in Item No.2 under Column No.(3) of the above Table above was not meant for manufacture of synthetic fibre. The parts mentioned therein were the required for the purposes of manufacture of machinery or equipment specified in List 45.
4. Customs law is concerned for the goods as presented for application of its provisions. Appellant was not manufacturer of machinery or equipment and the parts were not meant for such purpose. Accordingly, it is disentitled to the exemption benefit. We hold so for the reason that there is a very clear assertion of the appellant that it was not a machinery manufacturer or equipment manufacturer. This ground alone is sufficient to dismiss the appeal. We order accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (D.N. Panda)
Technical Member Judicial Member
gs
2
Appeal No.C/526/2005