TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication No.05/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 was denied to them. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of brass sheet and circles and clearing them to one of the buyers M/s.Harinam Enterprises, Jagadhari intended for use in utensils and handicrafts. An investigation was conducted at M/s.Harinam Enterprises and thereafter search was conducted at the end of the buyer of M/s.Harinam Enterprises who stated that the goods sold by M/s. Harinam Enterprises were not used as utensils and handicrafts but in fact is brass sieve test equipments and parts thereof which were used in testing of soils and chemicals. In these set of facts, it was alleged that the benefit of Notification No.05/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 is not available to the appellant as per Sl.No.42 of the said notification, the concessional rate of duty which is available only if the sheets in question are intended for use in the manufacture of handicrafts and utensils, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to avail the benefit of the said notification consequently, the proceedings were initiated and it was concluded that the goods sold by the appellant were not used for manufacture of utensils ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts excisable goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below and falling within the Chapter, heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Tariff Act), as are given in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, from so much of the duty of excise specified thereon under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table subject to the relevant conditions specified in the Annexure to this notification, and the Condition number of which is referred to in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the Table aforesaid. Explanation.-For the purposes of this notification, the rates specified in column (4) of the said Table are ad valorem rates, unless otherwise specified. Table S.No. Chapter or heading or subheading or tariff item of the First Schedule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition would have been a part of the notification as the same is in number of so many other notification. Such insistence and in any case rejection of certificates produced by the customers on flimsy ground reflects upon the intention of the lower authorities to confirm the demand, which cannot be appreciated. 8. We also find that in the case Sha Harakchand Dharmaji (supra), this Tribunal has observed as under: 4. We have considered the submissions made before us by both the sides. It is now seen that the exemption notification gives the benefit among other items to the goods which are imported into India in respect of PVA for use in the leather industry. The goods imported by the appellants admittedly fall under Sl. No. 36, Heading A of the notification. This position is admitted by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, there is no dispute in this regard. It is, therefore, admitted that the goods which are imported by the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 involved was interpretation of the words used in the notification wherein the words used was for use in the context of penetrators used in the leather industry as per Notification 224/85. The Tribunal in the said decision has followed decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court cited supra. The observation of the Tribunal in Para 16 of their decision is reproduced below : In the present case the notification permits exemption to penetrators imported for use in the leather industry. It has been shown that the substance imported has use in leather industry as a penetrator. Proof of actual use is not a condition attached to the exemption. If it were so, the notification would have provided for execution of a bond obliging the importer to produce proof of actual use as in the case of many other notifications. We, therefore, do not agree with the Revenue s conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
