Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.7.1. Learned Counsel further submitted that "Wealth of India", which is a dictionary of Indian Raw Materials and Industrial Product, mentions, "Serpentine marble".

4.7.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the DGFT instruction dated 10.06.2002 clearly clarifies that Serpentine should be treated as regular marble and export of dressed Serpentine blocks should be taken into consideration for discharge of export obligation of an advance license issued for dress marble block; relevant extract whereof is reproduced as hereunder:

From Para 2:
"The Bureau has further clarified that as per the commercial classification of marble adopted by the American Society for Testing Material (ASTM), commercial marble may also be classified, among others as Serpentine marble."

From Para 3:

"For the purpose of exports under Duty Exemption Scheme, serpentine (green marble) block should be treated as regular marble only and accordingly, SION entry No.A-1985, Handbook of Procedures, Vol.2 (Part-I) would also cover serpentine (green marble) blocks and also that exports of dressed serpentine (green marble) block should be taking into consideration for discharge of export obligation of an advance licence issued for Dressed Marble Block."

5.8. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant-company was intentionally not maintaining separate records for production and clearance of finished goods manufactured out of domestic and imported marble. He further submitted that the appellant- company has also not maintained proper records of DTA Sale; it merely mentioned 'marble' in their records intentionally, whereas in common trade parlance, they used to mention specific type of marble in invoice/record.

5.9. Learned counsel further submitted that in its periodic return (ER-2) submitted with the department, the appellant-company did not mention whether the goods were manufactured out of domestic marble or from imported marble. Further, as per learned counsel, the appellant-company did not disclose that it was exporting only indigenous (domestic) marble and obtained DTA sale permission for marble and that it did not export the goods manufactured out of imported goods.

8. This Court further finds that the anomaly arose because the appellant-company as against import of white marble blocks, exported consignment of marble slabs/tiles and granite slabs/tiles made out of indigenous marble/granite blocks, with serpentine slabs/tiles and dressed serpentine blocks, manufactured out of the domestically procured serpentine blocks. Thus apparently, the appellant-company was misusing the policy and the Notification to treat both as 'similar' for getting the exemption as the imports [2025:RJ-JD:5825-DB] (18 of 20) [EXCIA-126/2009] were exclusively of white marble blocks, whereas only small part of it were serpentine blocks, marble blocks made out of domestically procured serpentine blocks.