TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Notification No. 45/94, dated 1-3-1994 as per the abovecited notification. It is seen that the Government of India has exempted the duty in excess of 20% ad valorem in respect of the specified goods which are imported for use in the leather industry . The learned adjudicating authority has observed that the scope of the words for use in the leather industry should be taken as actual use. 2. Shri Sudhakar, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended before us that in the notification it is clearly stated that actual use is only with respect to those goods which are mentioned under Heading B of the notification. He contended that the condition and procedure laid down under Heading B is not with respect to Heading A of the Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants fall under Heading A of the notification. In the case of the goods under Heading B the notification stipulates that the importer at the time of importation shall furnish an undertaking to the Assistant Collector to the effect that the said goods shall be used for the purpose specified and that the importer of the goods also shall produce an extract of such account duly certified by the manufacturer evidencing receipt of the said imported goods in the premises of the manufacturer and he shall also pay duty on demand and in case of failure to do so. These conditions are for importation of the goods described under Heading B of the notification. There is no such condition attached to the goods which are imported under Heading A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that if the intention of the legislature was to limit the exemption only to such goods as are actually used by the importer the phraseology used in the exemption clause would have been different, as for eg. goods actually used or goods used . In the present case, the phrase used is goods imported into India" for use" in the leather industry. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above case will apply to the case of the appellants. The contention of the SDR that the words for use should be taken to be actual use cannot be accepted. This decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court was also taken note of by the Tribunal in the decision reported in [1991 (45) E.L.T. 553]. In that case also the issue invol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, we are not able to agree with the contention of the learned SDR. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the Collectors conference where this issue was taken and he also produced a copy of the minutes of the Collectors conference which is reproduced below : CONFERENCE CONCLUSION : After discussing the issue, the Conference recommended that since question raised by Bangalore Custom House is about the goods which can be used for general purpose also. T.R.U. should re-examine the issue whether the items of general use can be shifted to list `B . The conference observed that items figuring at Sr. Nos. 30, 31, 35 and 36 may have alternative uses and not having exclusive use in the leather industry. T.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
