2011 (1) TMI 1230 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 10/2006 for exemption from CVD for imported glasses for corrective spectacles
- Applicability of Notification No. 5/2006 for concessional excise duty on rough blanks
- Classification of ophthalmic rough blanks under Chapter Heading 7015.10
- Validity of denial of exemption by Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 10/2006: The appellants imported glasses for corrective spectacles and claimed exemption from CVD under S.No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the exemption, stating that rough ophthalmic blanks were not eligible. The appellant argued that the glasses fell under Chapter Heading 7011.10 and were fully exempted under S.No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2006. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the broad description of "glasses for corrective spectacles" under sub-heading 7015.10 included ophthalmic rough blanks and flint buttons. The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the exemption under the notification.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 5/2006: The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that only finished goods were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 10/2006 and that rough blanks were covered by Notification No. 5/2006 for concessional excise duty. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the specific inclusion of rough ophthalmic blanks under Chapter Heading 7015.10 meant that they were covered by the broader category of "glasses for corrective spectacles." The Tribunal noted the deletion of Sl. No. 20 of Notification No. 5/2006, further supporting the eligibility of rough blanks for full exemption under Notification No. 10/2006.

3. Classification of Ophthalmic Rough Blanks: The Tribunal analyzed the tariff sub-heading 7510, which included ophthalmic rough blanks under Chapter Heading 7015.10. The Tribunal clarified that since S.No. 10 of the notification granted exemption to glasses for corrective spectacles falling under 7015.10, it naturally included rough blanks. The Tribunal emphasized that the requirement of further processing for rough blanks did not affect their classification under the notification.

4. Validity of Denial of Exemption: The Tribunal found merit in the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order that denied exemption under S.No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2006. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief in accordance with the law. The judgment highlighted the correct interpretation of the notifications and the classification of goods for exemption from CVD, ensuring that the appellants received the entitled benefits under the law.