Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. In Unibourne Food Ingredients LLP Vs Commissioner of Customs, Mundra reported in 2022 (381) E.L.T. 810 (Tri. Ahmd.), the CESTAT, Ahmedabad, has held as follows :

"4. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. By the impugned decision dated 16-2-2012, Commissioner of Customs has denied the DFIA exemption https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 05:56:00 pm ) W.P.Nos.17912, 17916, 17918, 17919, 17921, , 17923, 17924, 17925, 17928, 17929, 17932, 17933 of 2023 benefit under Notification No.19 of 2015 to the appellant. The appellant has imported Vital Wheat Gluten and claimed Basic Customs Duty Exemption against the product description Wheat Flour (ITC HS No.1101 00 00), which is appearing under Serial No.1 of the list of import goods against Export of Biscuits as per SION E-5. DFIA produced by the appellant before the customs is a transferable license issued against Export of Biscuits as per SION E-5. Once the DFIA is made transferable, the Exporter is permitted to transfer the inputs to any third party as per the provisions of Para 4.29 of the FTP- 2015-2020. Both wheat gluten and wheat gluten flour is mentioned in the DFIA. Therefore, it can be fairly accepted that both wheat flour and wheat gluten is used for manufacturing biscuits which is exported. Since both the inputs are used in the resultant export goods, the licensing authorities have correctly issued the DFIA to that extent. The department is also not disputing this aspect except for the sole contention that the ITC (HS) number of wheat gluten flour is not mentioned in the DFIA. The appellant has relied upon decisions of Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal on the very same issue. The Tribunal on all these occasions has taken a consistent stand by holding that Wheat Gluten is covered by the description of Wheat Flour. As such no different view can be taken and are bound to follow the ratio laid down in that case as judicial precedent. That for claiming DFIA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 05:56:00 pm ) W.P.Nos.17912, 17916, 17918, 17919, 17921, , 17923, 17924, 17925, 17928, 17929, 17932, 17933 of 2023 benefit, under Notification No.19 of 2015, the appellant is only required to satisfy the description, value and quantity mentioned in the DFIA. The imported goods are covered within the description, value and quantity of the DFIA. Therefore, the submission that the appellant has not satisfied with the conditions of Notification is not correct. There is no such condition either in the policy or in the procedure or in the Notification No.19 of 2015 which stipulates that ITC (HS) No. is a criteria for claiming DFIA benefits as held by this Tribunal in the case of USMS Saffron Co. Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Mumbai vide Final Order No.A/3627/15/CB, dated 30-9-2015 [2016 (331) E.L.T. 155 (Tri. - Mum.)]. Under Exemption Notification No.19 of 2015, “Materials” has been defined as “raw materials; components, intermediates, consumable, catalysts and parts which are required for manufacture of resultant products”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata v. G.C.Jain – 2011 (269) E.L.T. 307 (S.C.) has inter alia held that 'the term used as “material” required for manufacture of export products would encompass such entities also which are not only directly used or usable as such in the manufacturing processes but also which could be used with same processing”. This Tribunal in the case of Unicolloide Impex v. Commissioner, Mumbai in Final order dated 11-6-2020 (supra) has accepted the contentions of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 05:56:00 pm ) W.P.Nos.17912, 17916, 17918, 17919, 17921, , 17923, 17924, 17925, 17928, 17929, 17932, 17933 of 2023 appellant that the import of 'wheat gluten” as 'flour' stood settled by the decision of the Tribunal in Uni Colloide Impex v. CC, Ahmedabad [2014 (310) E.L.T. 583 (Tri. - Ahmd.) (supra) and that two orders dated 12th September, 2011 and 16th December, 2011, of Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), having taken this view could not be reopened by the adjudicating authority as these had been accepted as legal and proper in review proceedings prescribed by the statute.