9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of refund on Zip Fasteners imported by the manufacturer of readymade garments invoking a specific exemption notification. Interpretation of the term "embellishment for footwear" under the notification. Validity of Import Licenses covering Import/Export linked items for the imported goods. Applicability of a previous government revision order. Requirement to establish the imported goods as embellishments for footwear used in the leather industry. Analysis: The case involves a Revision Application filed by the appellants concerning a claim of refund on Zip Fasteners imported for use in readymade garments, seeking exemption under Notification No. 29/79 dated 10-2-1979. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the exemption, stating that the goods imported did not qualify as embellishments for footwear in the leather industry. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, emphasizing that the importers were not in the leather industry for footwear, a prerequisite of the Notification. In their Revision Application, the appellants argued that they imported the goods against valid Import Licenses, transferable to actual users in a specific industry. They also referenced a government revision order supporting the classification of Zip Fasteners as embellishments for footwear. The department contended that the Zip Fasteners were being used in the readymade garment industry, not the leather industry for footwear, thus not qualifying for the exemption. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and highlighted that the focus should be on whether the imported goods were used as embellishments for footwear in the leather industry. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where it was established that the legislative intent behind the exemption notification required the goods to be used in the leather industry for footwear to qualify for the exemption. The burden of proof was on the appellants to demonstrate that the imported products were indeed embellishments typically used in the leather industry. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, aligning with the decision in the previous case and emphasizing the necessity for the imported goods to be utilized as embellishments in the leather industry to claim the exemption. The failure to establish this crucial aspect led to the dismissal of the appeal, reinforcing the importance of meeting the conditions specified in the exemption notification for eligibility.
|
