9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of exemption to imported goods under Notification No. 116/88 and 159/90. 2. Interpretation of phrases "materials required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of products" and "replenishment of materials used in the manufacture of the resultant products." 3. Determining whether imported goods were used for the purpose of manufacturing the resultant products. 4. Consideration of certificates and expert opinions regarding the essentiality of imported goods in the manufacturing process. 5. Comparison with relevant Supreme Court judgments on similar issues. 6. Decision on the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order. Analysis: The appellant applied for an advance license under the DEEC scheme for importing goods necessary for manufacturing polyester staple fiber and oriented yarn. The Customs House proposed denying duty exemption for Dowtherm and TEG, alleging that these goods were not used in the manufacturing process. The Commissioner upheld the denial, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that the goods were essential for manufacturing the final products, supported by a certificate from SASMIRA confirming their necessity. The Departmental representative contended that the phrases in the notification indicated different circumstances of material use, citing previous Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal noted a distinction between the phrases used in the notification, emphasizing that the exemption should cover materials required for manufacturing the final products, not just those directly used in the process. The certificate from SASMIRA further supported the essential role of the imported goods in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions affirming TEG as an input in the manufacturing process. The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized the importance of goods used for manufacturing the final products, aligning with the appellant's argument. The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were indeed used for manufacturing the final products, overturning the Commissioner's decision and granting relief to the appellant. In light of the Supreme Court's judgment and the essentiality of the imported goods in the manufacturing process, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief to the appellant. The detailed analysis considered the interpretation of phrases in the notification, expert opinions on the necessity of the imported goods, and comparisons with relevant legal precedents to arrive at a favorable decision for the appellant.
|
