2013(11)LCX0130

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI [COURT NO. II]

S/Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) and Manmohan Singh, Member (T)

VARDHMAN FABRICS

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Bhopal

Final Order No. C/A/58424/2013-CU(DB), dated 20-11-2013 in Appeal No. C/725/2007-Cus

Advocated By -

Shri Rupender Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri R.K. Mishra, DR,for the Respondent.

[Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. -

Ld. Counsel submits that there were two imports made during impugned period. So far as first import is concerned entire goods did not reach. But part of the goods reached and that part failed to enjoy EPCG benefit because such licence was not issued by that time. Rest of the part of the import of the first lot reached in India when EPCG licence was available to it. Appellant submits that when EPCG licence was granted to it entire lot should enjoy duty benefit under EPCG Scheme.


2. Considering aforesaid averment, also looking to the policy of import, we order that grant of EPCG cannot be claimed in so far as second part of import out of first lot is concerned. Accordingly duty demand on this count is confirmed for the reason that the import was prior to issuance of EPCG licence and for the mistake of either exporter or importer exchequer cannot suffer.


3. So far as second lot of import is concerned ld. Counsel says that import is covered by EPCG licence. There is also no difference to this proposal by the Revenue. Therefore there is no hesitation to grant EPCG benefit on second lot of the import.


4. Next question arises is in respect of classification. Appellant's goods were argued to be machinery meant for wool weaving industry. That cannot be vacuum cleaner of commercial use for its different nature and characteristic. Classification of such goods was claimed by appellant under the heading 8448 49 90. That entry is residuary entry of the class 8448. That entry throws light that the goods prescribed in Tariff entry is akin to weaving industries. But Revenue claimed the goods to fall under heading 8479 89 91. The goods in that entry belongs to industrial vacuum cleaner. Nothing is demonstrated by the order impugned to show that imported goods were industrial vacuum cleaner which was different by its nature and character. Assessee's claim appears to be reasonable when substance and coverage of both the entries are compared. Revenue's plea that the goods belongs to 8479 89 91 does not stand to reason. Appellant therefore succeeds on the aspect of classification and there shall be no duty demand on such count. Appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above partly and consequential relief if any shall flow in accordance with law.


5. In the result, appeal is partly allowed.

(Pronounced in the open Court)

Equivalent 2015 (320) ELT 0480 (Tri. - Del.)