Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.35 seconds)

Collector Of Customs vs Sun Export Corporation on 11 May, 1989

In support of this plea, the ld. Consultant relied upon the decision of Government of India in Collector Vs. Aysha Export Corporation reported in 1993 (68) ELT 265 (GOI) wherein it was held that laces in running length are not to be regarded as made upon articles being not ready for specific use but requiring stitching etc. after cutting. He argues that in the instant case also the paper is required to be cut, wound and wrapped for making artificial plants and flowers and as such are not articles which can be classified as consumer goods. The ld.Consultant further argues that Explanatory Notes under Heading No.48.23 at page 689 Vol.2 HSN distinguishes between "paper & paper board in strips or rolls of a width not exceeding 15 cm under Group 'A' whereas articles of paper under Group 'C'. He, therefore, submits that the impugned goods in strips or rolls of width below 15 cm cannot be treated/classified as articles of paper cut to size or shape under Sub-code No.482390 09.10. The ld.Consultant pleads that the lower authorities erred in considering the impugned goods as consumer goods by applying wrong criteria such as saleability, trading etc.. He submits that as per para 3.14 of the Exim Policy "consumer goods" means any consumption goods which can directly satisfy human needs without further processing. Any trade goods or raw material for manufacture are readily saleable and can be put to use to produce/manufacture some article but that does not make all trade goods in the market into consumer goods. The policy has categorically stated that the consumer goods must be consumption goods. It has distinguished between capital goods, consumables, raw materials and consumer goods.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Trans Freight Containers Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cus. on 29 December, 1997

In this context, he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case Trans Freight Containers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in 1998 (102) ELT 410 wherein it was held : "They must be consumption goods, they must directly satisfy a human need, they must satisfy such a need without further processing, i.e., in the form in which they are imported. The term "consumption goods" is not defined any where in the Policy. Going by ordinary meaning, consumption goods would mean the goods which are used up, exhausted or destroyed in the process of utilization. (By extension to the definition "consumer Durables" which would not be consumption goods in the manner so described have been included in the definition. We are however not concerned with this)."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1