1997(10)LCX0079

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Versus

BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD.

Final Order No. E/1497/97-B1, dated 9-10-1997 in Appeal No. E/1690/89-B1

CASE CITED

Premier Mills Ltd. v. Collector — 1997(02)LCX0041 Eq 1997 (093) ELT 0385 (Tribunal) — Relied on               [Paras 2, 3]

Advocated By : Shri S. Nunthuk, JDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondents.

[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This is a Revenue appeal which arises from order-in-appeal dated 23-9-1988, by which the Collector (Appeals) has held that the Photogravure cylinders are classifiable under Heading 84.42 and they are entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 64/86, dated 10-2-1986 (as amended by Notification No. 276/86). He has further held that this exemption is available only from the date of amendment of Notification i.e. 24-4-1986 and that the exemption is not available for screens. The Revenue contends that the benefit of Notification cannot be extended to rotary screens.

2. We have heard the learned DR. The party has also filed their objection and submitted that the matter has been decided by the Tribunal in a similar case in the case of Premier Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1997 (093) ELT 385. It is also pointed out by the respondents that the ground of appeal appear to have confused the concept. In that they seems to suggest that the issue is with respect to screens. The issue decided by the Appellate Commissioner is with respect to photogravure cylinders and therefore, the nicalson screen cylinders are clearly expose/photogravure should be nicalson cylinders and hence they contend that the appeal is misconceived.

3. On a careful consideration of the ground made out in the appeal, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The Notification No. 276/86, dated 24-4-1986 grants exemption to Gravure Printing Cylinders and Lithographic Plates falling under Heading 84.42 if they are used within the factory of production for printing purpose. In this case, there is no dispute about the items being utilised within the factory. The Tribunal has also looked into the aspect in the case of Premier Mills Ltd. and the issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we do not find may merit in this case, therefore the appeal is rejected.

______

Equivalent 1998 (97) ELT 79 (Tribunal)