TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Collector of Customs that the goods are the same which were exported. In fact of the case and even in the reply, the appellant accepted that the goods are not the same, in the sense that what was exported was the Nylon yarn and by adopting a process, the same was converted into Tyre cord. Thus, going by the stand taken by the appellant, this is not a case of slight or minor transformation of the goods. In this case, goods were exported in one form and re-imported in another form. Thus, it cannot be said that the goods imported are the same. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 8 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 10-11-2017 - A. S. Oka And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. Jitendra Motwani i/b. Mr. Madhur R. Baya for the Appellant Mr. Pradip Jetly for the Respondent JUDGMENT ( Per A. S. Oka. J. ) 1 By this Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the said Act ), an exception is taken by the appellant assessee to the judgment and order dated 17th May, 2006 by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short Appellate Tribunal ). 2 The appellant assessee exported quanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals). By order dated 2nd February, 2002, the appeal preferred by the department was allowed. An appeal was preferred against the order in appeal by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the questions of law framed in the order dated 21st February, 2007. He submitted that in the present case even going by the Show Cause Notice, the reimported goods are the same and there is a change of the form of the goods. He pointed out that the said Tyre yarn was exported and what is reimported was Tyre cord made up of the same. His submission on facts is that the goods are the same, but only the form of the goods has undergone a change. He submitted that the emphasis in the proviso to SubSection (1) of Section 20 is on the fact that the same goods should be reimported and the requirement of the goods being in the same form cannot be read into the proviso and if such requirement is read, the very object of enacting the proviso would be completely defeated. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Delhi High court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than importation of goods produced or manufactured in a free trade zone] takes place within three years after the exportation of such goods and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs that the goods are the same which were exported, the goods may be admitted (a) in any case where at the time of exportation of the goods, drawback of any customs or excise duty levied by the Union or both was allowed, on payment of customs duty equal to the amount of such drawback; (b) in any case where at the time of exportation of the goods, drawback of any excise duty levied by a State was allowed, on payment of customs duty equal to such excise duty leviable at the time and place of importation of the goods. (c) in any case where the goods were exported in bond, without payment of (i) the customs duty leviable on the imported materials, if any, used in the manufacture of the goods or (ii) the excise duty leviable on the indigenous materials, if any, used in the manufacture of the goods, or (iii) the excise duty, if any, leviable on the goods on payment of customs duty equal to the aggregate amount of all such duties calculated at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (underline supplied) Thus, the allegation is that the goods in question had changed its original form and were subsequently imported as the same were found defective for manufacturing of Tyre Cord Fabric. 18 Pallets of Nylon Tyre Yarn which were in the same form were granted benefit of clause (b) of SubSection (1) of Section 20. 10. In response to the Show Cause Notice, a reply was submitted by the appellant on 5th August, 1996. It is accepted therein that the Company in Germany subjected a part of the said Tyre Yarn to spinning process, but the goods were found defective. In paragraph 2 it is accepted that a part of the yarn spun was converted into cord. In paragraph 8, it is contended that what is re-imported is the cord which is manufactured from the exported yarn. The dispute is only about those goods which were admittedly converted into tyre cord. 11. We have examined the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. The decisions are about the process of manufacturing in the context of the Excise Act. One decision holds that by preparation of Multifold/ doubled yarn out of duty paid cotton yarn does not mean that excisable goods come in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
