9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the imported 'Wet Acrylonitrile Fibre'. 2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 64 of 1979. 3. Interpretation of exemption notification in light of classification disputes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of the imported 'Wet Acrylonitrile Fibre': The primary issue revolves around whether 'Wet Acrylonitrile Fibre' should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 5503.30 (Acrylic or Modacrylic Man-made staple fibres) or under Chapter 29 (organic chemicals) as claimed by the appellant. The appellant argued that the fibre is specifically used in the pharmaceutical industry, thus qualifying it under Chapter 29. They provided supplier literature and proof of use in drug manufacturing to substantiate their claim. The lower authorities, however, classified it under Chapter 55, leading to the denial of exemption. 2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 64 of 1979: The appellant contended that they met all conditions stipulated in the exemption notification, which included: - Importing goods specified in the notification. - Using the goods in the manufacture of drugs. - Maintaining accounts and producing proof of such use. The notification exempts goods falling within Chapters 28, 29, or 30 when used for manufacturing drugs. The appellant provided a detailed manufacturing process and supplier literature to demonstrate that 'Wet Acrylonitrile Fibre' is a chemical product used in the pharmaceutical industry, thereby qualifying for exemption. 3. Interpretation of exemption notification in light of classification disputes: The tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim, noting that the exemption notification explicitly mentions 'Acrylonitrile' as an exempted item for drug manufacturing. The tribunal emphasized that the classification dispute should not negate the purpose of the exemption notification. They referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Tullow India Operations Ltd., which stated that once an assessee satisfies the eligibility clause, the exemption clause should be construed liberally. The tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Jain Engineering v. Collector of Customs, which held that the clear and manifest intention of an exemption notification should not be narrowly interpreted to deny its benefits. The notification's intent was to grant exemption to specified goods used in drug manufacturing, and the tribunal found that the appellant had met this criterion. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the appellant's 'Wet Acrylonitrile Fibre' should be classified under Chapter 29, making it eligible for exemption under Notification No. 64 of 1979. They set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in open Court on 2-3-2006)
|
