TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sought for exemption from payment of countervailing duty under Notification No. 06/06-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. The Original Authority proceeded to reclassify the semi-finished spectacle lens under heading 9001 90 90 of the Customs Tariff and further deny the benefit of Notification No. 06/06-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. The appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the impugned order upholding the decision of the original authority. The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned orders-in-appeal. Therefore, they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri Rajesh C. Kumar, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, learned JDR, for the Revenue. 4. We heard both sides. 5. The main issue to be decided in both these appeals whether the impugned goods are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 06/06-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. The lower authorities after going through the Notification have come to the conclusion that the impugned items semi-finished spectacle lens are 'ophthalmic blank' and they are subjected to further process like grinding, polishing and cutting before becoming lenses. In other words the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort. Even a glass blank lens which is commonly used in spectacles without adding any power is also a spectacle lens. Once the lenses are identified for use in a spectacle alone, than in terms of the functional test prescribed by the Apex Court in a number of decisions, the goods would have to be considered as a spectacle lens in terms of its function. The learned Advocate placed before the Tribunal the opinion furnished by Dr. A. Subrahmanyam Professor department of Physics I.I.T. In his opinion dated 19-4-2007 the Professor has opined that even the semi-finished spectacle lens has to be considered as spectacle lens only because the semi-finished lens cannot be used for any other purposes. It has already obtained the characteristics of a spectacle lens. 7. The learned Departmental Representative invited our attention to the international standard in respect of semi-finished spectacle lens and stated that the semi-finished spectacle lens blanks are entirely different from the fully finished spectacle lens as can be seen from the definitions in the ISO. He also said that the notification has to be strictly interpreted. He pointed out that the exemption available is only for spect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 (196) E.L.T. 242 (Tri.-Mumbai) has held that products coming out after grinding and polishing are distinct from raw material namely, ophthalmic blanks and which are to be further optically worked before becoming lenses. It was held that the ophthalmic blanks are not entitled to exemption under Notification 79/90-C.E. being not lenses. 9. The learned Advocate on the other hand countered the contentions of the Revenue by saying that the decisions relied on by the Revenue the party affected did not effectively represent their case and therefore those orders have been passed without taking into account the various facts. He reiterated the expert opinions which are extracted below: Department of Physics Tel 91-44-22574865 Indian Institute of Tech- Fax : 91-44-22574852 nology Chennai - 600 036 22570509/22670545 India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f interpretation cannot be applied and resort have to be taken to other rules of interpretation. Example: the Heydon's mischief Rule, the purposive rule etc. 11. The learned Advocate urged that if the benefit of the notification is not given the very purpose of issuing the notification will be defeated and the impugned item can be used only for manufacturing spectacle lens and they cannot be put to any other use. Therefore he requested the Bench to give the benefit of exemption notification to the impugned item. 12. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the fact that the impugned items are semi-finished spectacle lens is not at all disputed either by the appellant or by the Revenue. The learned Advocate in the course of the hearing before the Tribunal produced sample of the impugned items. We find that as explained by them on one side the impugned item is optically worked and on the other side it has been left just like that. The main point urged by the appellant is that it is not possible to obtain a spectacle lens in the market which is suitable for a person with various types of eye defects. In other words there are millions of combinations of variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enses and intraocular Lenses Nil - - 14. We find that as seen from the exemption notification, the exemption is given to spectacle lens. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the impugned item is semi-finished spectacle lens. As pointed by the learned SDR, even the ISO defines "semi-finished spectacle lens" and spectacle lenses differently. They are actually different. Even the appellant is not disputing this fact. The only point emphasized by the learned Advocate is that for various types of vision defects it is not possible to purchase spectacle lens off the shelf from a shop and necessarily depending upon the eye defect, the each individual requires a special type of spectacle lens it can be made only from semi-finished spectacle lens. In that view of the matter, he urged the point that the impugned item should also be considered as spectacle lens and the benefit of exemption notification should be given to them. He said that the facts that the semi-finished lens has already acquired a characteristic of the finished lens is to be taken into account. He also said that even for giving the benefit of notification the rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
