9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dried Cup Type Noodles production capacity 50,000 PCS per 8 Hours". The appellants had imported the said goods under OGL, Appendix I, Part B, Item No. 12(i)(5) of the Import Export Policy, 1985-88, which reads as under : - "12. (i) Food processing machines, the following :- (v) Macroni, noodles, sphagetti, vermecilli and other paste products manufacturing machinery." The department did not raise nay dispute as regards the import of the item under the said OGL. The appellants had imported the said machinery under the project import. The same was assessed as project import in terms of the Chapter Note 1 and 2 of Chapter 98 and thus it was classifiable under Heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff Act along with benefit of Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter to claim the benefit available to the imported goods in any other Notification. In this context, a reference was made to the preamble of Notification No. 132/85-Cus. which had been granted to them wherein it had been stated as follows :- "Nothing contained in this notification shall effect the exemption granted under any other notification of the Government of India for the time being in force from the duty of customs, Schedule in respect of the goods referred to in this notification............" Reference was also made to Note 1 and 2 of Chapter 98 which laid down that "this Chapter is to be taken to apply to all goods which satisfy the conditions prescribed therein, even thought they may be covered by a more specific heading elsew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that the goods were imported for project import and such other conditions laid down therein and it should be classifiable under Chapters mentioned in the Note to Chapter 98. Thus it follows that the department had not challenged the original classification of the goods under Chapter heading 8438.10 which is a correct classification on merits. It is only by legal friction the goods get classified under Chapter 98 on account of the goods having been imported under project import. It is his submission that the Notification under which the benefit had been granted i.e. Notification No. 132/85 it clarifies that nothing contained in the Notification shall affect the exemption granted under any other Notification. Therefore, it is his sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inister when introduced Chapter 98 in the Parliament which clearly discloses the mind of the legislature that the benefit which flow from Chapter 98 in excessive and once that is in operation, the party cannot chose to seek the benefit available in any other Chapter Heading which incidently, the item may get classified on merits. The Learned DR relied on the ratio laid down in this context on the importance of the Finance Ministers' speech to know the mind of the legislature as `contemporaneous exposito' as laid down in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC). He also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. Jalyan Udyog as reported in 1993 (68) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n granted under any other notification of the Government of India for the time being in force from the duty of customs specified in the said First Schedule in respect of the goods referred to in this notification." There was another Exemption Notification, which was dated 28-2-1985 as amended on 1-6-1985, which granted exemption from Customs duty to horological machines and testing equipments for manufacture or assembly of mechanical and quartz analog wrist watches and parts thereof over and above 10% ad valorem. The assessee claimed the benefit of the second of the two Notifications referred to above (now called "the horological notification"). The Tribunal took the view that, since the assessee had chosen the classification under Chapte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above it is not necessary for us to give any findings but to respectfully follow the judgment. The Revenue has not disputed about the applicability of the Notification No. 125/86. The points raised by the Assistant Collector that the goods had been cleared prior to the coming into effect of this Notification has already been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that the Assistant Collector had wrongly confused the year 1986 with the year 1988. As regards the applicability of the Notification No. 125/86 on merits, no dipute on its applicability otherwise was raised by the lower authorities or by the Learned DR while arguing the matter. We have also perused the said Notification. The Sl. No. 2 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
