9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether imported Nyloflex Photopolymer Relief Image Printing Plates are eligible for exemption from basic duty under Notification No. 231/88-Cus. 2. Whether the claim for revision of Auxiliary duty by the appellants is time-barred. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta regarding the classification of Nyloflex Photopolymer Relief Image Printing Plates for duty exemption. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Woven Sacks, imported the plates for their printing operations. They claimed concessional duty under Notification No. 231/88-Cus. The Assistant Collector rejected their refund claim, stating that their industrial license was for manufacturing sacks, not printing. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, not addressing the Auxiliary duty issue due to lack of a claim. The appellants argued that their printing activities should be considered part of the printing industry, citing relevant case law and a DGTD certificate indicating a separate printing unit. The respondent contended that the exemption should be strictly interpreted and cited precedents where similar activities were not considered printing industry. The Tribunal examined whether the imported plates qualified for duty exemption under Notification No. 231/88-Cus. The notification exempted goods for use in the printing industry. The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving textile printing, where printing activities related to the main industry were considered part of the printing industry. Applying this reasoning, the Tribunal held that since the appellants' license was for manufacturing sacks, not printing, the plates did not qualify for exemption under the notification. Therefore, the appeal was rejected. In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the Nyloflex Photopolymer Relief Image Printing Plates were not eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 231/88-Cus. due to the appellants' industrial license being for manufacturing sacks, not printing. The appeal was dismissed based on this finding.
|
