2013 (8) TMI 398 - AT - Customs

Applicability of Notification No.04/2006 - appellant imported Indigo powder 94 percent Wettable falling under chapter 3204.1559 claiming the benefit under Notification No.04/2006 from the payment of CVD department rejected the claim on the ground that condition of the notification No.04/2006CE was not fulfilled Held that - Exemption notification should be read literally and if once it is found that notification applicable to case of assessee, the same has to be construed having regard to purpose and object it seeks to achieve court followed the judgement of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar vs. Malwa Industries ltd.(2009 (2) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT) - while considering serial no.67 of Notification No.04/2006-CE had held that same factory meaning that imported goods are required to be used in the factory belonging to the importer where manufacturing activity takes place - if the excisable duty was not leviable on manufacture of goods, question of importer paying any additional duty for import of like goods does not arise order set aside decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No.04/2006-CE for imported Indigo powder.
2. Interpretation of condition for exemption under Entry 67 of Notification No.04/2006-CE.
3. Applicability of exemption when goods are not manufactured in the importer's factory premises.
4. Precedent set by Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar vs. Malwa Industries Ltd. case.
5. Requirement of imported goods to be used in the importer's factory for exemption.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Indigo powder and claimed benefit under Notification No.04/2006-CE to avoid payment of CVD. However, the claim was denied by the authorities citing non-fulfillment of conditions of the notification.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled against the appellant, stating that since the appellant was not manufacturing the imported goods in their factory premises, they were not eligible for the exemption provided under Entry 67 of Notification No.04/2006-CE, leading to the imposition of Central Excise duty.

3. The issue was found to be settled in a previous case involving the appellant, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the term "same factory" in the notification referred to the importer's factory where manufacturing activities took place. The Court emphasized that if excise duty was not leviable on the manufacture of goods, there was no requirement for the importer to pay additional duty on the import of similar goods.

4. Following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the appellant's previous case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellant based on the literal interpretation of the exemption notification and its intended purpose.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the denial of benefit under the notification, the interpretation of exemption conditions, and the significance of the importer's factory premises in determining eligibility for exemption, as established by legal precedent.