9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (11) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 17/2001 for imported leather from Italy. Analysis: The appeal revolves around the importer's entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 17/2001 for leather imported from Italy. The Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority categorized the imported commodity as patent leather, thereby excluding it from the scope of the notification. The appellant argues that the imported commodity is finished leather, falling under Serial No. 136 of the notification, which includes various types of finished leather. The appellant contends that patent leather is a type of finished leather, supported by the Glossary of Terms related to hides, skins, and leather for ISI standard purposes. The Revenue's argument is based on the classification of finished leather products under Chapter 41 of the Indian Customs Tariff Act, distinguishing them from chamois leather, patent leather, and other specific types under separate headings. The Revenue asserts that the legislative intent of Serial No. 136 was to provide exemption only to specific varieties like wet blue and tanned leather, excluding all types of finished leather. However, the Tribunal disagrees with this interpretation, emphasizing that the definition of finished leather encompasses patent leather as well. The Tribunal clarifies the definitions of wet blue chrome tanned leather and crust leather, highlighting that neither falls under the category of finished leather, which is intended to receive exemption benefits under the notification. After a thorough analysis, the Tribunal concludes that patent leather, the imported commodity in question, is covered by Notification No. 17/2001. The Tribunal rejects the Revenue's interpretation and sets aside the impugned order, allowing the importer's appeal. The decision is based on the understanding that patent leather qualifies as finished leather and thus falls within the scope of the notification, contrary to the Revenue's argument.
|
