2011 (2) TMI 397 - AT - Customs

Concessional rate of duty - Notification No. 5/06-C.E. dated 1-3-2006 - Since the goods chargeable to the concessional rate 4% were other than nylon filament yarn but the goods imported by the respondents were nylon filament yarn - Further the deniers described by the respondent is in multiples of 210 i.e. 840 1260 1680 etc. - The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted the term multiples as a term qualifying the filament yarn rather than as a term relatable to denierage of the yarn - This interpretation is per se erroneous. The expression in the multiples of is certainly relatable to arithmetic multiplication of 210 for denierage of filament yarn - The appellant has made out a strong case for stay of operation of the appellate Commissioner s order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 5/06-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 for concessional rate of CVD on imported goods.

Analysis:
The case involved an application filed by the Revenue seeking a stay of operation of an order where the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Notification No. 5/06-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 to the respondent, enabling them to avail a concessional rate of 4% of CVD for imported goods. The original authority had denied this benefit, citing that the goods imported were nylon filament yarn of 210 deniers or multiples thereof with a tolerance of 6%, which should be charged at 8% CVD according to the Notification. The ld. JDR contended that the appellate authority wrongly interpreted the terms of the Notification, arguing that the goods declared by the importer in the Bills of Entry indicated the importation of nylon filament yarn in multiples of 210 deniers. Upon reviewing the description of the goods in the Bills of Entry, it was found that the submission of the JDR was correct, as the goods were indeed imported in multiples of 210 deniers. The table annexed to the Notification specified different rates for different types of goods, distinguishing between nylon filament yarn of 21 deniers or multiples thereof and nylon filament yarn of 210 deniers or multiples thereof. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had interpreted the term "multiples" as qualifying the filament yarn itself rather than relating to the denierage of the yarn, which was deemed erroneous. The expression "in the multiples of" was clarified to refer to the arithmetic multiplication of 210 for the denierage of filament yarn, supporting the Revenue's case for a stay of the appellate Commissioner's order.

The Tribunal found that the goods imported by the respondent were indeed nylon filament yarn, which was different from the goods chargeable at the concessional rate of 4% as per the Notification. The deniers described by the respondent were in multiples of 210, such as 840, 1260, 1680, etc. The misinterpretation by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the term "multiples" was highlighted, emphasizing that it should be understood in relation to the denierage of the yarn and not as a qualification of the filament yarn itself. As no opposition was presented against the application, the Tribunal granted a stay of operation of the impugned order, thereby allowing the application filed by the Revenue.