Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.70 seconds)M/S. Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. ... vs Collector Of Customs Bombay on 2 September, 1997
3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the spares got imported by the appellant for Wabco Trucks, P&H Shovel, etc. mentioned earlier, fall within the purview of Notification No. 13/81-Cus. Central Government issued Customs Notification No. 13/81-Cus on 9.2.1981. The preamble to that notification stated that goods specified in the Table attached to it, when imported into India for the purpose of manufacture of articles for exports out of India by hundred per cent export-oriented undertakings are exempt from the whole of the duty of Customs leviable thereon under the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the additional duty leviable under Section 3. The Table attached to that notification contained three items only. They were capital goods, raw materials and components. How such a notification is to be understood and given effect to came up for decision before the Supreme Court in the case of Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay . In that case, it was contended before their Lordships that the words in the preamble, namely, "for the purpose of manufacture" in the notification have the effect of enlarging the ambit of the exemption that has been granted. In other words, it was argued that by virtue of these words the notification would include material which though not directly used in the manufacture of the product but is necessary for the purpose of manufacturing the product will fall within the ambit of the notification. This contention was accepted by their Lordships and it was held that the wordings in the notification have to be construed keeping in view the object and purpose of the exemption. Their Lordships opined that the exemption cannot be confined to materials which are actually used in the manufacture of the resultant product but would also include materials which though not used in the manufacture of the resultant product but are required in order to manufacture the resultant product. In view of this statement of law, when one examines the preamble to Notification No. 13/81-Cus, its scope and ambit is beyond doubt. Those goods specified in the Schedule, when imported into India for the purpose of manufacture of the final article, should get exemption from duty and additional duty. The goods imported need not necessarily be directly connected with the manufacture of the article meant for export. If the goods imported are essentially connected to the purpose of manufacture, such goods must also fall within the ambit of the notification.
Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987
6. Learned Departmental Representative brought to our notice a decision of a Larger Bench of five Members of this Tribunal in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras, to contend that the decision of the Supreme Court in Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. case is not to be followed in interpreting the scope and ambit of Customs Notification No. 13/81.
National Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 30 May, 1997
In the absence of any such definition in Customs Notification No. 13/81, we are clear in our mind that the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. case cannot be of any assistance to the Revenue.
Collector Of Central Excise And Customs vs Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. on 2 April, 1992
In the decision in the case of Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. reported in 1992 (41) ECR 390, a Bench consisting of three Members took the view that spares for Dozer Shovel are spares for production machinery. The Bench took the view that having regard to the process of production, the final product would not come into existence but for the use of Dozer Shovel and so Dozer Shovel is also a production machinery. As Benches consisting of two Members and three Members dealt with the scope and ambit of Customs Notification No. 13/81-Cus. in the above-mentioned cases, the present reference made by a Bench of two Members has been posted before this Larger Bench of five Members.
Steel Authority Of India vs Collector Of Customs on 9 October, 1991
It is worthwhile to note that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 2000 (115) ELT 42 took the view that even the trade notice issued by one Customs House must bind all Customs authorities throughout the nation. In such a situation, the Departmental Representative was not to advance any argument against the terms of the letter sent by the Central Board of Excise and Customs referred to earlier.
Section 3 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
M/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996
It was further stated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs that they have accepted the CEGAT order and, therefore, similar goods imported should get exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. This clarification issued by the Board binds the authorities under the Excise and Customs Act. They are not entitled to argue against the terms of that letter [vide decision of the Supreme Court in Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise ].
1