Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: intermediate component in Brindha Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Customs on 23 December, 2005Matching Fragments
4. The Id. SDR reiterated the order-in-appeal.
5. We have perused the connected records. The Notification 32/97-Cus., dated 1-4-97 provides exemption to goods imported for execution of an export order for jobbing. In this Notification "goods" means raw materials, components, intermediate, semi-finished goods, consumables, parts, packing materials including hangers for garments, patterns, drawing, jigs, tools, fixtures, moulds, tackles, instruments, and computer hardware and software as are directly related to the export order and supplied free of cost by the foreign buyer. The main condition for duty free import under this Notification is that the goods imported including resultant product are re-exported to the supplier of the goods within six months from the date of clearance. Further, the goods imported should be for execution of an export order placed on the importer by the supplier of goods for jobbing. From the definition of jobbing given in the Exim Policy it cannot be inferred that the jobbing process should necessarily result in a complete manufactured article. Jobbing can be a part of the process. In the case at hand the appellants segregate the outer insulation portion from the metallic portion of the imported cables. Both the resultant products are exported. In our view the activity carried out by the appellant it conforms to the definition of jobbing as given in the Policy. The lower authorities' interpretation that the jobbing should necessarily result in a manufactured product is not correct. As per the Notification the jobbing should be undertaken in accordance with the procedure set out in Customs (IDCRDMEG) Rules, 1996. It is not the Revenue's case that the appellants did not follow the procedure set out in the above Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) reference to decision regarding hazardous waste is beyond the scope of the show cause notice and also not relevant as the appellant is exporting the segregated material in entity. In view of our above observation, the impugned order has no merit. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential relief.