TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the goods is established beyond reasonable doubt by the test report got conducted on the impugned goods for the subsequent period and relied upon, as is evident from the Order-in-Original, dated 31.12.2012 (adjudicating the SCN issued for the period Feb 2011 to Jan 2012). The facts of the case here are in a narrower compass compared to the cases discussed as above, the difference in goods only being that of concentrated or diluted. Both of them are named ceramic colours only. Test reports indicated that they have similar composition as rightly held by the Learned Commissioner for the subsequent period. Therefore, there is no doubt that the goods exported and the goods cleared by the appellants are similar in terms of Para 6.8 of FTP. Moreover, the fact that Development Commissioner has issued permission is not denied - In view of the judgement in COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD VERSUS NOVAPAN INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2007 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] , the Order-In-Original should hold good for the earlier period also. It is pertinent to note that the department did not bring forth any change in the circumstances or the quality of the goods exported and cleared in DTA by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forgone on such clearances; extended period was invoked for the period December 05-February 2010; Both the SCNs came to be adjudicated vide Belapur/71-72/ Bel-II/R-IV/ SLM/COMMR/2011- 12/Bel dated 29-07-2012. The appellants are before us challenging this order. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants obtained necessary permission from the Development Commissioner for export and clearance in DTA; the manufacturing activities are similar for the goods either exported or cleared in DTA; the only difference between the goods cleared for exports is that they are more in concentrate form when compared to the goods cleared in DTA; consequentially, the goods exported are costlier than the goods cleared in DTA. 2.1. Learned Counsel submits that there may be some differences in some technical parameters and quality as per the requirement of the user or customer; for that reason, it cannot be held that goods are not similar paragraph 6.8 of FTP is not violated; in the commercial parlance, ceramic colours in diluted form and ceramic colours in concentrated form are known, understood and traded as ceramic colours only. 2.2. Learned Counsel further submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 (240) ELT 544 (T-Del) (ii). Hindustan Heavy Chemicals v. CCE 2009 (240) ELT 14 (Cal) (iii). CCE vs. KPTCL 2010 (250) ELT 572 (T-Bang.) 3. Learned Authorised Representative for the department reiterates the findings of Order-In-Original. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The issues before us to be decided are as to whether the ceramic colours cleared by the appellants for export as well as DTA are similar; whether benefit of notification cited above can be extended to the impugned goods and whether extended period can be invoked in the instant case. 5. We find that the appellants are manufacturing, exporting and selling in DTA, Ceramic colours. The department says that the items are dissimilar in properties and characteristics; value of goods sold in DTA is very much lower than that of exported goods and therefore the items are similar and therefore, the clearances in DTA are in violation of the Para 6.8 of the Policy and consequentially, the benefit of Notification No 23/2003-CE is not available. The appellants, on the other hand, submit that they obtained necessary permission from the Development Commissioner for export and clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of similarity of goods, exported by the appellant, the appellants relied on the ratio of various decisions of Courts and Tribunal. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. have held that 5. It is manifest that the equipment were electrical appliances. There was no dispute on that. It is also clear that these are normally used in household and similar appliances used in hotels etc. The expression similar is a significant expression. It does not mean identical but it means corresponding to/resembling to in many respects; somewhat like; or having a general likeness. The statute does not contemplate that the goods classified under the words of similar description shall be in all respects the same. If it did, these words would be unnecessary. These were intended to embrace goods but not identical with those goods. If the item for similar appliances which are normally used in the household, these will be taxable under tariff item 33C. 8. We also find that Supreme Court in the case of Woodcraft Product (supra) held as follows 17. The meaning of the significant words and description of the wood products as intermediate mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. 2011 (268) ELT 252 (Tri-Chennai) has opined that fresh mushrooms and processed mushrooms even though classifiable under separate chapter headings belong to the same class of goods and both are similar. 10. In view of the above, we find that the judgments have given wider meaning to the word Similar . It would mean similar, same class of or same kind of goods. In the instant case, the goods exported and the goods cleared are described as ceramic colours. In view of the ratio of the various judgements cited above, there is not even an iota of doubt in our minds, the goods cleared by the appellant in DTA are nothing but the goods which are similar to the goods exported well within the meaning assigned to the same in paragraph 6.8 of FTP. It has been demonstrated that the manufacturing activity is same for both type of colours. The similarity of the goods is established beyond reasonable doubt by the test report got conducted on the impugned goods for the subsequent period and relied upon, as is evident from the Order-in-Original, dated 31.12.2012 (adjudicating the SCN issued for the period Feb 2011 to Jan 2012). We find that facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
