1998 (9) TMI 306 - AT - Customs

Duty concession in respect of Asceptic Packaging System under Notification No. 47/84-Cus. before its amendment by Notification No. 191/85-Cus.

Issues involved:
1. Admissibility to the benefits of Notification No. 47/84-Cus., dated 1-3-1984.
2. Classification of the imported consignment as Aseptic Packaging System.
3. Scope of the term "Aseptic Packaging Systems" under Notification No. 47/84.
4. Retrospective effect of amending Notification No. 191/85.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility to the benefits of Notification No. 47/84-Cus., dated 1-3-1984:
The Revenue Appeal sought to set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-12-1990 and restore the Order-in-Original dated 30-4-1987. The Assistant Collector had issued a demand notice for extra duty on the grounds that the goods were erroneously assessed to a lower rate under Notification No. 47/84. The Assistant Collector confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 35,80,152.17, asserting that Notification No. 47/84 did not cover machinery for processing the product but only the packaging system.

2. Classification of the imported consignment as Aseptic Packaging System:
The consignment imported by the Respondents consisted of a product preparation system, product sterilization system, product filling system, and engineering drawings, along with optional equipment and spare parts. The Assistant Collector classified the product preparation system and product sterilization system as separate from the Aseptic Packaging System, which only included the product filling system. The Collector (Appeals) reversed this finding, concluding that the entire system, including the product preparation and sterilization systems, should be considered as part of the Aseptic Packaging System.

3. Scope of the term "Aseptic Packaging Systems" under Notification No. 47/84:
The Collector (Appeals) found that the term "Aseptic Packaging Systems" in the Notification's Sl. No. 12 implied that the concessional rate of duty should apply to the entire system, including the product preparation and sterilization systems. The Assistant Collector, however, argued that the Notification only covered the packaging system and not the machinery used for processing the product. The Tribunal agreed with the Assistant Collector, stating that the Notification's wording was clear in covering only machinery used for packaging and not for processing food articles.

4. Retrospective effect of amending Notification No. 191/85:
The Tribunal observed that the amending Notification No. 191/85, which made the entry against Sl. No. 12 more comprehensive, had no retrospective effect. Therefore, the original Notification No. 47/84 did not cover machinery or systems related to food processing. The Tribunal concluded that the product preparation system and product sterilization system did not fall within the scope of "Aseptic Packaging Systems" as per Notification No. 47/84.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue Appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal emphasized that the Notification during the relevant period only allowed benefits to the aseptic packaging system(s) and not to the processing or sterilizing systems, which are prepackaging stages. The Department's appeal was accepted, confirming that the appellants were not entitled to the claimed benefit despite the use of the plural form "systems" in the Notification.

← Previous Next →