2001(08)LCX0225

IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

Versus

HARITA GRAMMER PVT. LTD.

Final Order No. 1306/2001, dated 8-8-2001 in Appeal No. C/SB/2575/94/Md

Cases Quoted

Commissioner v. BHEL — 1983(03)LCX0042 Eq 1987 (031) ELT 0534 (Tribunal) — Relied on............................... [Para 2]

Ecoplast Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1992(02)LCX0042 Eq 1992 (060) ELT 0578 (Tribunal) — Relied on.................... [Para 2]

Enfield India Ltd. v. Collector — 1991(03)LCX0054 Eq 1991 (055) ELT 0427 (Appl. Collr.) — Relied on............... [Para 2]

Harita Locks Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — Order No. 3092/87, dated 27-11-1997 — Relied on. [Para 2]

Mitra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1990(08)LCX0003 Eq 1991 (051) ELT 0111 (Tribunal) — Relied on....... [Para 2]

Shardlaw India Ltd. — Appeal No. C28/2/98 C.Cus. 682/98, dated 15-7-1998 — Referred [Para 2]

Advocated By :   Shri A. Jayachandran, DR, for the Appellant.

Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, Consultant, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. M.CUS: 329/94, dated 31-3-94 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondents were entitled to claim the benefit of Notification No. 86/88 in respect of abrasion testing machine with accessories and spares under Customs Tariff Heading 9824 imported for industrial plant covered under Project Import Regulation under Heading 9801.

2. The Bench had given a direction to the DR to call for a report from the Commissioner in the case of M/s. Shardlaw India Ltd. where the plea of the assessee was accepted in the Order-in-Appeal No. C28/2/98C. Cus 682/98, dated 15-7-98 which was remanded by the Tribunal for de novo consideration of similar issue. The learned DR has submitted a reply received from the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Sea), Chennai vide communication bearing Ref. No. DA 46/94-RC, dated 13-3-2001 wherein it is stated that the Order-in-Appeal in the case of M/s. Shardlaw India Ltd. has been accepted by the Commissioner in which the benefit of the notification available to the assessee was allowed by de-registering the purchase order in question from the project import. In the present case, the purchase order was not even registered relating to abrasion testing machine, though the goods were approved by the DGTD for project import benefit.

2. Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, learned Consultant for the respondents while reiterating the grounds taken in their written submissions stated that Customs Notification No. 132/85 is the governing notification for assessment under Chapter 98.01 for effective rate of duty for such assessment, though this notification has a rider that nothing contained in this notification shall effect the exemption granted under any other notification of the Govt. of India for the time being in force from the duty of Customs specified in the said First Schedule in respect of the goods referred to in this notification. He has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his plea :

(1)     Enfield India Ltd. v. CC reported in 1991 (055) ELT 427

(2)     Ecoplast Pvt. Ltd. v. CC reported in 1992 (060) ELT 578

(3)     Mitra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC reported in 1991 (051) ELT 111

(4)     Commissioner of Customs v. BHEL reported in 1987 (031) ELT 534

(5)     Harita Locks Pvt. Ltd. v. CC vide Final Order No. 3092/87, dated 27-11-1997

He has submitted that the issue is no longer res integra as the issue in question has been well settled and there is no infirmity in the order impugned. He therefore prayed for dismissing the Revenue appeal.

3. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us by both the sides and gone through the records and perused the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the ratio of the judgment cited by him in the order impugned. We are in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) and we confirm the same and dismiss the Revenue appeal. Ordered accordingly.

_______

Equivalent 2002 (140) ELT 0394 (Tri. - Chennai)

Equivalent 2001 (047) RLT 0833