1994 (7) TMI 84 - SC - Customs

Whether the appellant was entitled to the exemption under these notification No. 153/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986 which came to be amended by Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 13-3-1986? Held that - The language of the relevant part of the notifications under consideration being in pari materia with the 1976 notification and the two notifications having also included parts of the goods covered by (g), which had been included in the main body in Notification No. 281/76-Cus. the benefit of Notification 153-Cus., dated 1-3-1986 as amended by Notification 208-Cus., dated 13-3-1986 has also to be made available to the appellant and for the period these notifications held the field; and we order accordingly. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to exemption under specific customs duty notifications.

Analysis:

The judgment in question pertains to a review petition arising from an appeal that was disposed of on February 2, 1994. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 153/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986, which was later amended by Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 13-3-1986. The appellant contended that despite claiming the exemption, it had not been granted. The main issue for determination was whether the appellant was entitled to the exemption under these notifications. The exemption related to the payment of customs duty for the manufacturing of specific engine parts. The appellant had previously been granted benefits under different notifications, and the question now was related to the specific exemption under the 1986 notifications.

The appellant's representative argued that the benefit under the notifications should be almost automatic based on a previous judgment by the Court. The contention was that there was only a formal change in the language of the notifications, and the denial of the exemption by the Collector of Customs was considered arbitrary. To assess this argument, the Court delved into the details of the original 1976 notification, which was later amended multiple times leading to the notifications in question. The Court examined the language and provisions of the notifications to determine the applicability of the exemption to the appellant.

After a detailed analysis of the evolution of the notifications and their provisions, the Court concluded that the language and scope of the 1986 notifications were consistent with the original 1976 notification, which had been the basis for a previous judgment granting the appellant exemption. Therefore, the Court held that the benefit of the 1986 notifications should also be extended to the appellant for the relevant period. Consequently, the review petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and their application in determining the appellant's entitlement to the customs duty exemption under the specific notifications in question.