TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Ltd.[ 2002 (10) TMI 188 - CEGAT, KOLKATA] . In the ITC Ltd.[ 2002 (10) TMI 169 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] case also, a similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal. All these judgments clearly apply to the facts of the case and the appellants' contention that the replenishment materials are required for manufacture of resultant products and they have been used so and it satisfies the Notification, should be accepted. The further case of the assessee that the demands are barred by time is a well taken ground for the reason that all the details and particulars have been mentioned in the records and on our perusal of the entire records, including the licence and the documents furnished at the time of export and at the time of import of the raw materials for replenishment, we find that the details had been furnished. Licence, DEEC passbook and other documents had been scrutinized by the DGFT and the Customs Authorities and there was no details which had not been declared was discovered by the DRI in the investigation. There was no suppression or mis-declaration of facts. Therefore, in the light of the judgment cited by the Counsel, the demands are clearly barred by time. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of products cannot be construed as referring only to materials, which are used in the manufacture of products but also includes the materials that are required to manufacture the resultant products. (xi) It is settled law now that once EO is discharged and a Certificate to that effect is obtained from JDGFT, the Customs Officers cannot question or re-open such cases. 2. The Commissioner, in paras 34 and 35, has clearly admitted about the description of the items imported being strictly in accordance with the SION. He has also noted that exempt materials have not been sold or transferred or disposed of and that these were not questioned by the DRI in the Show Cause Notice. He has also admitted that the DGFT and the Customs Authorities have accepted the technical specifications furnished by the customer and the exporter and the export obligation had been fulfilled. However, as the DRI had investigated the matter and found some discrepancy, therefore, the benefit of DEEC Scheme has to be denied solely on the consideration that the imported raw material had not been used for manufacture of finished products and its mere capability of being used in the manufactured item is not the consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is to be exported or the raw-material should have been capable of being used in the manufacture of item that has already been exported. Admittedly, both these conditions are not satisfied. 3. The arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel at great length and he contended that the period in question is 1996 to 2000. The Show Cause Notice had been issued on 21-3-2003. All the details required had been furnished in the declarations. The same was pointed out to the Bench and submitted that when all the details had been furnished, the question of invoking larger period does not arise and the demands were barred by time. It was also pointed out that the assessees are manufacturers of various kinds of Springs and the main raw material used are Spring Steel Wire . The main input viz. Spring Steel Wire , required for the manufacture of Helical Springs is procured both from the domestic as well as overseas sources. They had obtained during the period 1996 to 2000, 24 Advance Licences whose details are not questioned. The goods were imported as replenishments against the raw material viz. Spring Steel Wires used in the manufacture of the resultant products, which had already been e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A129 (S.C.) and that of Sha Harakchand Dharmaji v. CC, Madras -1996 (88) E.L.T. 764 (T). 5. He further submitted that once the export obligation has been fulfilled, then the raw materials imported for replenishments can be used in the manufacture of goods, which are sold in the domestic market and the Customs Authorities cannot demand duty on the ground that the goods have been imported have not been used in the export product. He relies on the following three ratios: (a) Dolphin Drugs (P) Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 552 (b) Standard Industries Ltd. v. CC, Trichy - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 124 (c) CC v. Cheminor Drugs Ltd. - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 649 (T) (d) Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 680 (T) 6. The Counsel further submitted that the Customs authorities cannot question the validity of the import licence and the raw materials imported thereunder and relied on the ratio of the following rulings : (a) UOI v. Oceanic Export Corporation - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 19 (Madras) (b) CC v. Ryben Pharmaceuticals - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 215 (T) (c) Jaysynth Dyechem Ltd. v. CC - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1429 (T) (d) Autolite (India) Ltd. v. UOI - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 13 (Bom.) (e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have contended that the Commissioner has applied the ratio of Zenith Tin Works, which interpreted the term 'Raw materials' as applicable in the earlier Notification 116/88 which stated that the materials means raw materials used in the manufacture of resultant products which is subsequently been altered to mean raw materials required for manufacture of resultant products . In this connection, the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd., and Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (cited supra) has been relied. In the case of Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has clearly held that in the Notification, two different expressions have been used namely, 'materials required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of products' and 'replenishments of materials used in the manufacture of resultant products' which indicates that the two expressions have not been used in the same sense. The Apex Court further clarifies that the expression 'materials required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of products' cannot be construed as referring only to materials, which are used in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket and that the Customs authorities cannot demand duty on the ground that the goods imported have not been used in the exported goods. The Tribunal has relied on the judgments of Dolphin Drugs (P) Ltd, Standard Industries Ltd. and CC, Hyderabad v. Cheminor Drugs Ltd. (supra). 11. On a careful consideration of the judgment of the Apex Court ruling in the case of CC, Kolkata v. Rupa and Co. Ltd. - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) (supra), we find that the Apex Court's explanation of the term 'Goods required for manufacture' to mean to include materials not directly used in the manufacture of resultant product but still required therein, also applies to the facts of the case. The Apex Court has relied on the earlier ruling rendered in the case of Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. We find that a similar view was expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. and in the case of Kitply Industries Ltd. (supra). In the ITC Ltd. (supra) case also, a similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal. All these judgments clearly apply to the facts of the case and the appellants' contention that the replenishment materials are required for manufacture of resultan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
