9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of entry in Notification 16/85 for assessment under Heading 8443.50, benefit of Notification No. 108/89, and applicability of lower rate of auxiliary duty. Analysis: The case involved the appellants filing a bill of entry for a TEE Shirt Printing Curing Machine, claiming assessment under Heading 8443.50 at a concessional rate of auxiliary duty under Notification No. 108/89. Customs authorities found two machines - a mechanical print drier and a panel printer. The adjudicating authority extended the benefit of Open General License (OGL) to the machines but did not apply the lower assessment of Customs duty under Notification No. 108/89. The authority interpreted the entry in Notification 16/85 strictly, denying the benefit based on the impression that it referred to a single composite machine. The appellants appealed, arguing that the machines were interdependent for simultaneous printing and curing processes. The Principal of a textile institute supported this view, certifying the machines as one unit separated into two parts. The appellants contended that the benefit of Notification No. 108/89 should be extended to them. The learned advocate for the appellants argued that the adjudicating authority's reasoning was flawed, emphasizing the simultaneous nature of printing and curing processes. The authority and the appellants presented conflicting views on whether the machines were separate entities or a single composite machine. The appellants sought the extension of benefits under Notification No. 108/89 based on the machines' interdependence for the printing and curing processes. The advocate highlighted the certificate from a textile institute supporting the appellants' position regarding the machines' functionality. The Respondent, represented by the SDRK, supported the adjudicating authority's findings, emphasizing the separate functions of the machines for printing and curing. The Respondent contended that the entry in Notification 16/85 implied a single machine capable of performing both processes. The Respondent argued for a strict interpretation of the entry language, denying the benefit of the notification based on the machines' individual functionalities. The Respondent maintained that the machines did not qualify for the benefits under the said notification due to their separate printing and curing functions. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments from both sides and agreed with the appellants' position. The Tribunal interpreted the entry in Notification 16/85 liberally, considering the objective of granting benefits to machinery used in the garment or hosiery industry. The Tribunal noted the ambiguity in the entry "TEE Shirt Printing Curing Machine" and concluded that the benefit should be extended to the importers due to the inherent confusion in the entry language. The Tribunal also referenced the supporting certificate from the Principal of a textile institute, reinforcing the appellants' claim. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellants.
|
