9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an annual capacity of 3 million pieces. Notification 13/81-Cus. dt. 9-2-1981 allows import of capital goods, raw materials and components for production by 100% EOU free of duty. The importers i.e. EOU are required to carry out the manufacturing in Customs bond and for this purpose the respondents were granted licence by Customs Bonded Warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. They also executed a bond under Section 59 ibid. Besides the import of capital goods, raw materials and components, the respondents were found to have imported and cleared free of duty spares, namely, Rhodium Platinum Heaters and spares for Coil Winders valued at Rs. 95,069.48 during the period 10-9-1982 to 28-2-1983. 1.1 The authorities later on felt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the appellants that these goods should be considered capital goods, since, without them, their sealing head machines which were the metal portion to the glass portion relays, would be useless. If one subjects the goods to be normal distinction between capital goods and consumer goods, these are certainly not consumer goods and would certainly far more appropriately be considered capital goods. Without these goods, the last of the machinery would not be operational and the very purpose of the notification which is to exempt from duty the capital goods in 100% export oriented unit, would be defeated. In this case, additionally, these goods are in the nature of consumables, since their life is much shorter than that of the machines to w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treat them as part of their submissions. Miscellaneous application is disposed of in terms of the above order for statistical purpose.' 3. Learned SDR, Shri B.K. Singh, for the Revenue on behalf of the appellant-Collector urges that the lower appellate authority has gone wrong in treating the spares as capital goods in terms of Notification 13/81. According, to the appellant-Collector this position becomes clear since the Government amended the Notification 13/81 by another Notification 86/84-Cus. dated 19-3-1984 by including within the exempted list spares of machinery and consumables. It is argued that had the earlier notification included within its scope the expression `consumables' and `spares', there was no need to amend the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry was filed in Chandigarh and the question of jurisdiction is no longer res integra inasmuch as in indentical circumstances, this issue has been decided in the case of CCE & C, Bhubaneshwar v. Ferro Alloys Corporation reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 689 (Tri.) = 1992 (41) ECR 390 (Tri.) - para 15.3 which he read out and emphasised. It is reproduced below :- On the question of merits, learned consultant has submitted that the view taken by the lower appellate authority, as set out above, is correct. Merely because a subsequent amendment has been made in a notification nothing can be inferred therefrom that the goods introduced in the exempted list by the subsequent amendment could not be read in the earlier exemption list. 5. We hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
