1995(11)LCX0048
IN THE CEGAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH `B’, NEW DELHI
S/Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President and S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
SANGHI SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD.
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
Order No. C/389/95-B, dated 16-11-1995 in Appeal No. C/910/86-B2
Cases Quoted
Escorts Ltd. v. Collector — 1990 (047) ELT 68 [Para 6]
Diamond Polymers v. Collector — 1991 (055) ELT 83 [Para 6]
Collector v. Office Photostat Printers — 1991 (054) ELT 142 [Para 6]
Collector v. Blue Star Ltd. — 1990 (050) ELT 186 [Para 6]
Modern Food Industries (India ) Ltd. v. Collector — 1990(11)LCX0016 Eq 1991 (053) ELT 0107 (Tribunal) [Para 6]
Jupiter Radios v. Collector — 1995(05)LCX0133 Eq 1995 (078) ELT 0365 (Tribunal) [Para 6]
Advocated By : Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Shri Mohd. Ali, JDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - This is an appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay Airport dated 5-7-1985/26-12-1985.
2. The Learned Counsel stated that the issue relates to “Elastic Lace Making Machine” imported by them in 1985.
3. The goods were classified under Heading 84.37 by the customs and there is no dispute about heading but the department did not allow the benefit of exemption Notification No. 16/85-Cus., dated 1-3-1985 claimed by them, although it was covered by Entry 32 thereof. The goods were confiscated on the ground that the importation was not covered by OGL since it was a versatile machine capable of more than one function.
4. It was their contention that this item is specifically mentioned in Appendix I Part B Entry 35 which allows importation of capital goods under OGL as it stood at the relevant time.
5. It is their submission that since the exemption Notification allows the benefit in respect of items listed therein and falling within Chapter 84. Therefore, the benefit of this exemption was also available to them. This will be evident from the fact that there is a specific entry regarding this as Entry 32 of the Notification and it has been classified by the customs themselves under Heading 84.37.
6. It was also their contention that the Learned Collector had erred in holding that it is liable for confiscation merely because it was a versatile machine. This is evident from the fact that this issue has already been settled by the Tribunal by its orders reported in :-
1. 1990 (047) ELT 68
2. 1991 (055) ELT 83
3. 1991 (054) ELT 142
4. 1990 (050) ELT 186
5. 1990(11)LCX0016 Eq 1991 (053) ELT 0107 (Tri.) = 1991 (035) ECR 0332 (Tri.)
6. and the latest 1995(05)LCX0133 Eq 1995 (078) ELT 0365 (Tri.) = 1995 (60) ECR. 85.
7. The ratio of all the orders is that in case any item is specifically mentioned in any entry with reference to its function the benefit is required to be allowed even after it could perform more than one function.
8. The Learned DR reiterated the department’s view point, saying that the pamphlet filed by the appellants themselves shows that it was a versatile machine which was capable of manufacturing not only lace but also Elastic Braids and Cords for textile industry with special Adapters and they are already court judgments to the effect that exemption Notifications should be construed strictly. Similarly the OGL Entry should also be treated as covering only those machines which could manufacture elastic laces only.
9. The Learned Counsel stated that the machine as imported was meant for manufacturing elastic laces; and it could be adapted for making elastic braids and cords only after making sufficient alterations and as pamphlet itself shows only with special Adapters. Even otherwise, as the orders cited above show, the importation was covered by OGL and the item was entitled to benefit of Notification.
10. We have heard the above submissions.
11. We observe that the Learned Counsel’s submissions are correct. We find that the customs themselves have classified the item under 84.37. We also find that there is a specific entry under the OGL Appendix 1 Part B at Serial No. 32 as “Elastic Laces Making machines”. We also find that the exemption Notification No. 16/85 also has a specific entry to this effect and allows benefit in respect of the listed items which fall under Chapter 84.
12. We also observe that the Tribunal has already laid down in a series of cases that if an item is specifically mentioned, with reference to its main function it is required to be allowed the benefit even if it was capable of performing more than one function.
13 In view of this position, following the ratio of an earlier orders, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit, if any, due.
_______
Equivalent 1996 (82) ELT 238 (Tribunal)