1997 (2) TMI 270 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 345/86 for exemption on imported dumate wire.
2. Determination of whether "lead in wire" and "glass to metal seal" are the same product.
3. Consideration of certificates from manufacturers and competent authorities.
4. Analysis of previous judgments and legal principles regarding certificates from competent authorities.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case challenges the Order-in-Appeal of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's claim for exemption under Notification 345/86 for imported dumate wire. The dispute revolves around whether the imported goods qualify for exemption under the notification. The appellant claimed that the goods were used in the manufacture of glass to metal seal and should be exempted. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim, stating that the appellant was licensed for the manufacture of lead in wire, not glass to metal seal, and upheld by the Collector (Appeals).

The appellant argued that the exemption under Notification 345/86 required a certificate from a specified officer confirming the intended use of the goods, which had been provided. Additionally, the appellant referred to a previous order where it was held that "lead in wire" is synonymous with "glass to metal seal." Certificates from manufacturers were also presented, asserting that the two products were the same in common parlance, supporting the appellant's claim for exemption.

The Departmental Representative contended that the intention of the notification was to grant exemption to electronic items, and since the product was used in lamps, it did not qualify for exemption. The appellant's licensing for lead in wire manufacture was highlighted as a reason for denial of exemption.

Upon review, the Tribunal considered certificates from competent authorities and manufacturers, which indicated that "lead in wire" and "glass to metal seal" were interchangeable terms. The Tribunal also referenced a previous judgment where it was established that the two products were the same. Based on these findings and legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had successfully demonstrated their eligibility for exemption under Notification 345/86.

In light of the evidence presented and the legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasizes the importance of certificates from competent authorities and manufacturer opinions in determining eligibility for exemptions under relevant notifications.