2005 (12) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Interpretation of statute - Imports crude palm oil - benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - concessional rate of duty - lower authority rejected the application for issue of registration certificate - No factory of their own and as there is already another factory in the above premises - HELD THAT - In our view, denial of Registration under Rule 3 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacturer of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 to the importer on the ground that he does not have own a factory in which the imported goods are to be used is very much against the Exim Policy, Board's Circular and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indica Lab P. Ltd. 1989 (5) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD interpretation of manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is nothing strange or illegal in a person utilising the manufacturing facilities of another. In order to be a manufacturer one need not own a factory. The practice of more than one manufacturer using a factory is recognised as can be seen in the SSI Notification with regard to clubbing of clearances. The expression his factory should be interpreted to mean the factory where the importer wants to utilise the imported goods in terms of the Notification. The Department can not insist on ownership of the factory and deny registration for the purposes of the Notification. The Tribunal, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Electronic Research Ltd. 2005 (2) TMI 361 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , has held that literal meaning of statute should be abandoned if it leads to unjustified results. In that case, goods imported under Concessional rate of duty for use in one factory were transferred to the factory of the importer at another place under certain circumstances. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the importer. Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the importer was entitled to exemption as neither the Rules nor the Notifications itself prohibited such transfer. The above decision was held in the context of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. The ratio of the above decision is applicable to the present case also. The fact that Chennai Commissionerate has permitted Registration in respect of the importer who does not own the factory where the imported Crude Palm Oil is utilised is also supporting the appellants' case. Hence we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of "his factory" under Customs Rules for concessional rate of duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue: Interpretation of "his factory" under Customs Rules.

- Facts: The case involved an appeal against the rejection of an application for a registration certificate under the Customs (Imported Goods Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. The lower authorities argued that the importer should own a factory and use the imported material only in that factory to be entitled to concessional assessment.

- Arguments by Appellant: The appellant's counsel argued that the Rules should be interpreted in line with the Exim Policy's definition of "actual user" and the spirit of liberalization and globalisation. They cited circulars clarifying the movement of duty-free goods and previous court decisions allowing use of facilities owned by others.

- Tribunal's View: The Tribunal disagreed with the literal interpretation of "his factory" by the lower authorities. It emphasized the need to align with the liberalization philosophy and global trade practices. The Tribunal referenced the Exim Policy, circulars permitting movement of goods, and court decisions allowing utilization of facilities owned by others for manufacturing.

- Precedent: The Tribunal cited a case where goods imported under concessional duty were transferred to another factory of the importer, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer. This decision highlighted that the Rules did not prohibit such transfers, supporting the appellant's case.

- Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the importer need not own the factory where imported goods are utilized. Denying registration based on factory ownership was deemed against policy, circulars, and legal interpretations. The Tribunal stressed that the focus should be on where the imported goods are utilized, not factory ownership, aligning with global trade practices and liberalization principles.

This detailed analysis provides insight into the interpretation of "his factory" under Customs Rules, highlighting the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal based on liberalization principles and legal precedents.