TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strued. when the Notification clearly provides the benefit of concessional duty only for manufacture of ceramic cores/substrates for resistors, which is not the claim of the appellant, we are not inclined to accept the case of the appellant that ceramic cores are nothing but porcelain insulators. As has been rightly held by the Apex Court [2008 (3) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], we are not inclined to read something more into the Notification, which are not found therein. Accordingly, we answer the first substantial question of law in favour of the department and against the assessee. Tribunal has rightly upheld the order of the original authority for rejecting the application of the appellant for manufacture of porcelain insulator, inasmuch as the porcelain insulator to be manufactured by the appellant is not known in the market / trade parlance as 'ceramic core' and therefore the concessional rate of customs duty cannot be extended to the imported ball clay for the manufacture of porcelain insulator. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. Finding of the appellate Commissioner has no relevance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification 25/99 dated 28.2.1999 for the Ball Clay imported by the appellants on the ground that the appellant have not claimed that any ceramic core or substrate manufactured out of the imported Ball Clay was to be captively consumed in the manufacture of resistor? (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the first respondent is correct in upholding the order of the adjudication authority who rejected the appellant's claim to register under the Customs (Import) of goods at concessional rate of duty for the manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 1996, when the goods imported were indeed used in the manufacture of Ceramic cores? (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the first respondent was correct in accepting the ground 1 4 on the grounds of appeal of the department before the first respondent, as the submission made in the said grounds is beyond the scope of the Notification involved in the present case and introduced a new theory while interpreting the exemption notification? (4) In the facts and circumstance, whether the first respondent was correct in not giving a liberal interpretation to the exemption notification, once it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e changed from ''Electric Insulator of any material'' to ''Ceramic Cores, Insulators and its allied products.'' 3. For the purpose of registration, the original authority viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, after considering the above letter dated 4.11.2003, came to the conclusion that the goods that were sought to be manufactured by the importer viz., porcelain insulator be otherwise called as ceramic insulator, but the Notification provided for concessional rate of duty for import of ball clay to be used in the manufacture of ceramic cores. The specific finding of the original authority is that no material was available to show that ceramic core can be also called as ceramic or porcelain insulator. It was also held that ceramic / porcelain indicator is not known in the market / trade parlance as ceramic core. Since the porcelain insulator to be manufactured by the appellant is not known in the market as ceramic core, concessional rate of customs duty cannot be extended to ball clay imported vide Serial No.158 of Notification No.25/99-Customs dated 26.2.99 as amended. Accordingly, he passed the following order:- ''(i) I do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purely a question of fact, we are not inclined to go into the said issue at this point of time. 6. Since the issue raised in this appeal primarily concerns with the Serial No.158 of the Notification No.25/99-Customs dated 28.2.99 as amended by Notification No.26/02-Customs dated 1.3.2002, the said entry reads as under:- Sl.No. Chapter Description of Imported goods Description of finished goods (1) (2) (3) (4) 158 25 Ball Clay Ceramic Cores/ Substrates for resistors 7. While adverting to the first substantial question of law, we find that the order of the Tribunal is not on a misreading of the above Notification, as the Tribunal has rightly held that the registration obtained by the appellant was for the manufacture of 'electric insulators' and not for the manufacture of 'resistors' nor they claimed that 'resistors' are the same as 'insulators'. It also held that to avail the benefit of concession under the Notification, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orcelain insulator to be manufactured by the appellant is not known in the market / trade parlance as 'ceramic core' and therefore the concessional rate of customs duty cannot be extended to the imported ball clay for the manufacture of porcelain insulator. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 9. Moving to the third substantial question of law, the Tribunal has taken into consideration grounds 1 4 of the grounds of appeal raised by the department, while interpreting the exemption Notification, for setting aside the order of the appellate authority. For better clarity, we extract the above grounds relied upon by the Tribunal as follows:- ''(1) The appellant herein respectfully submit that the concessions provided for Ball Clay under Notification No.25/99-Cus dt 28.2.99 is only for Ball Clay used in the manufacture of Ceramic Cores/Substrate for Resistors. The words 'for resistors' in column 4 against Sl.No.158 of the said Notification qualifies the 'slashed' words 'ceramic cores/substate' thereby making it clear that both ceramic core and the substrate sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellate Commissioner in favour of the appellant importer, was sought to be distinguished by contending that the exemption Notification should be strictly interpreted. We find that the Tribunal has rightly interpreted the entries of the Notification to the facts of this case and sustained the case of the department. Accordingly, we answer the third substantial question of law in favour of the department and against the assessee. 10. As regards the fourth substantial question of law, we find that there is no scope for the Tribunal to give a liberal interpretation to the exemption Notification in the light of the various decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue. Therefore, we answer the same in favour of the department and against the assessee. 11. Coming to the fifth substantial question of law, on the facts of this case, we could see that the finding of the appellate Commissioner has no relevance to the issue, because the original authority has not granted the benefit of registration for import of ball clay for the manufacture of ceramic cores used in the insulators. If the appellant manufactures ceramic cores, there can be no difficulty in granting the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
