Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.2. In support of his submissions reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., reported in 2021 (378) E.L.T. 42 (Kar.) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as under :-

"7. Now we may advert to the first issue whether the respondent has violated the actual use condition as envisaged under Section Notification 30/1997. It is pertinent to note that none of the terms and conditions of Notification No.30/1997 envisage physical incorporation of NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/1488/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined imported material in the goods that are exported towards fulfillment of export obligations. The aforesaid Notification grants exemption from the whole of the custom duty and whole of the additional duty to the 'materials' imported against an Advance Licence subject to conditions stipulated therein. The word 'material' has been defined in Explanation II to mean raw materials, components, intermediates, consumables, computer software and parts required for manufacture of resultant product specified in Part E of the said certificate. It is also pertinent to note that phrase 'required to manufacture' as stated in the Notification contemplates possible or intended use and not actual use as clarified in Circular No.36/97 dated 16.09.1997. Thus, the material need not be directly used in the manufacture of resultant product and proof of actual use is not a condition attached to the exemption Notification. The aforesaid position has been explained in the Circular 36/1997-Cus dated 16.09.1997 which was issued specifically in the context of difficulties faced by garment exporters as the custom field formations were insisting that nexus between export product and duty free material imported was required to be established. The imported goods need not be physically used in the manufacture of goods that are exported. Condition (vii) of Notification No.30/97-Cus permitted discharge of export obligation either by usage of imported duty free material or by replenishment material. The only requirement as per condition No.(vii) is that such inputs should not be sold or transferred in the market. In other words, the replenished inputs can be used in manufacture of other products and not necessarily incorporate in export of goods. Thus, from the aforementioned reasons, it is evident that the respondent has not violated the conditions of the Notification No.30/97- Cus and has rightly imported the material and has discharged its export obligations. The tribunal therefore, in the impugned order has rightly held the Circular to be applicable in the case of the assessee."