2023 (7) TMI 317 - AT - Customs

100% EOU - specialised imported chemicals for providing fire retardant property made duty free - clearing chemicals imported by them under Notification No. 52/2003 - conditions stipulated in para 4 of the Notification satisfied or not - HELD THAT - In their own case this Tribunal has dropped the demand against the appellant - reliance placed in the case of M/S. TARASAFE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE KOLKATA-V 2019 (6) TMI 502 - CESTAT KOLKATA where it was held that The activity carried out at the premises of job workers will be squarely covered within the para 4 (iii) of the Notification under which due permission has been granted by the Development Commissioner. There is no dispute that the processed fabrics on which the imported chemicals coated has been duly received in the premises of appellant and there is no justification for raising the demand for Customs duty not paid at the time of import on the chemicals. The issue is no more res integra. Therefore there are no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the import of goods by a 100% Export Oriented Unit for the manufacture of Fire Retardant Industrial Safety Garment, specifically concerning the clearance of chemicals under Notification No. 52/2003-CUS and the application of job work conditions.

Issue 1: Clearance of chemicals under Notification No. 52/2003-CUS
The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, imported goods duty-free under Notification No. 52/2003-CUS for the manufacture of Fire Retardant Industrial Safety Garment. The appellant sent imported chemicals to job workers for coating on fabrics manufactured by them. The Department alleged that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of the Notification and Circular No. 65/2002-CUS, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand. The adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty. The appellant appealed, arguing that a previous Tribunal decision favored them.

Issue 2: Interpretation of 'job work' under Notification No. 52/2003-CUS
The Tribunal analyzed the concept of 'job work' under the Notification, focusing on whether the activity of coating chemicals on fabrics at the job workers' premises qualified as 'job work.' The appellant contended that 'job work' should cover activities carried out on materials supplied by them, even if all required materials were not provided. Citing case laws, the Tribunal observed a liberal interpretation of 'job work' and concluded that the appellant's activity fell within the Notification's provisions. The Tribunal found that the fabrics were purchased by the appellant and duly received after processing, thus rejecting the duty demand on imported chemicals.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant based on the interpretation of the Notification provisions and the concept of 'job work.' The Tribunal's decision was influenced by previous rulings and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately providing consequential relief to the appellant.