2002 (2) TMI 622 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 23/98 for concessional rate of duty.
2. Classification of imported goods as insole material sheets.
3. Expert opinions on the use of imported material.
4. Comparison of material form - rolled vs. sheet.
5. Precedent regarding PVC insole material form.
6. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 23/98.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 23/98 for the concessional rate of duty. The Tribunal noted that the notification exempts goods for use in the leather industry, specifically mentioning insoles, midsoles, and sheets thereof. The critical term "namely" indicates that only goods falling under these categories are eligible for the concessional rate of duty.

2. The classification of the imported goods as insole material sheets was disputed. The importer claimed the benefit under Notification No. 23/98 for the imported goods described as insole material sheets. However, samples sent for testing to CLRI indicated that the samples could not be used as insole sheet material in shoe making. This discrepancy led to the denial of the concessional rate of duty.

3. Expert opinions played a crucial role in the case, with conflicting views presented by different experts. While one expert opined that the material could be used in high fashion ladies open footwear, another expert suggested that the material could be used predominantly as uppers in footwear. Despite these opinions, the Tribunal found that the expert views did not align with the intended use specified in the notification.

4. The comparison between the form of the imported material, specifically rolled vs. sheet, was highlighted. The material imported by the appellants was in rolls, as evidenced by the Bill of Entry submitted. This form factor was a determining factor in the denial of the benefit under Notification No. 23/98, as the notification specified eligibility for goods like insoles, midsoles, and sheets.

5. Reference was made to a precedent regarding PVC insole material, where the Tribunal observed that material in rolled form should not be considered as in sheet form. This precedent further supported the argument that the material imported in rolled form was not eligible for the concessional rate of duty under the notification.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the imported goods did not meet the criteria specified in Notification No. 23/98 for concessional duty. Despite the expert opinions provided by the appellants, the form of the material and the specific categories mentioned in the notification were decisive factors in rejecting the appeal for the benefit under the notification.