1995 (7) TMI 198 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission to produce additional evidences under Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.
2. Determination of entitlement to import jumbo rolls as 'Actual User (Industrial)' without a valid Industrial Licence under Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.
3. Applicability of licensing provisions of Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 based on the number of workers employed in the factory.
4. Request for additional evidence including statutory returns, certificates under the Factories Act, and Attendance Register.
5. Preliminary objection raised regarding the ground of appeal related to Industrial Licence under IDR Act.
6. Submission of documents related to Industrial Development Regulation Act, Factories Act, and Import Export Policy.
7. Interpretation of the definition of 'existing industrial undertaking', 'factory', and 'industrial undertaking' under IDRA.
8. Import of jumbo rolls of cinematographic colour film as an Actual User under OGL.
9. Requirement of an industrial licence for activities of slitting and confectioning by an industrial undertaking.
10. Relevance of documents before the adjudicating authority in the present case.
11. Classification of the appellant as an actual user (industrial) under the relevant Import Policy.
12. Consideration of additional evidence for determining the issues before the Tribunal under Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Misc. application seeking permission to produce additional evidences under Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The appellant, holding a valid SSI Industries certificate, contested the requirement of a valid Industrial Licence under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951, for importing jumbo rolls as an 'Actual User (Industrial)'. The appellant argued that the licensing provisions do not apply as the factory employed less than 50 workers, supported by documents like statutory returns and certificates under the Factories Act. The appellant sought to correct a technical error in the grounds of appeal related to the Industrial Licence issue, which was allowed by the Bench.

Further, the appellant submitted various documents related to the Industrial Development Regulation Act, Factories Act, and Import Export Policy to support their case. The appellant emphasized that they were not an industrial undertaking as defined under the IDRA due to the number of workers being less than 50. The appellant contended that they were entitled to import goods as an Actual User under the relevant Import Policy. The respondent, however, argued that the imported goods required an industrial licence under IDRA and were not covered by the Open General Licence.

The Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, allowed the additional evidence to be produced, noting the relevance of the documents in determining the issues. The Tribunal clarified that the evidentiary value and implications of the documents would be subject to arguments during the main appeal hearing. Ultimately, the application for producing additional evidence was accepted, setting the stage for further debate and analysis during the main appeal proceedings.