Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The issue before us is not as complex as made out in the rival submissions and requires no reference to the concept of manufacture. The short point for determination is the eligibility of 'polyethylene (PET) granules' used in testing of 'moulds' manufactured, and acknowledged as goods eligible to qualify towards fulfilment of 'export obligation', by appellant as intended to be covered by notification no. 52/2003-Cus dated 31st March 2003. The said exemption operationalizes the intent of Government of India in formulation of the design of the 'export oriented scheme (EOU)' of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The policy does not distinguish any category of goods in the conceptual framework but allows 'all types of goods' in paragraph 6.2(b) and even the Handbook of Procedures (HoP), in paragraph 6.5.1, has clubbed 'raw materials, components, consumables, intermediates, spares and packing materials' as one distinct category for the purposes of exemption implying, thereby, that these are all inputs in the manufacturing process. The definition of 'consumables' in paragraph 9.15 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) is broad enough to cover goods that do not go into the final product but, nonetheless, is essential to the final product. An untested product, especially custom-made, as held in re Flex Engineering Ltd, is not a product that will be accepted by the customer and, therefore, undeniably C/86325/2013 & C/86326/2013 rendering the raw materials used for test production as 'consumables' eligible for exemption. The output of test of manufactured 'capital goods' is distinguishable from test run of 'installed machinery' which precedes actual commercial production and it would appear that the jurisdictional authorities were unable to appreciate the distinction which shifts an input from 'raw material' to 'consumables' for the purposes of the impugned notification.