9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 159/86 regarding exemption from duty for imported automatic chain making machines used in the process and manufacture of gem and jewellery for export. 2. Whether the machines should be exclusively used for export production to avail the benefit of the notification. Analysis: 1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification 159/86, which exempted imported automatic chain making machines from duty if used in the manufacture of gem and jewellery for export. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleged that the machines were used for local sales, not solely for export, and proposed disallowance of the notification. The importer argued that a substantial portion of the goods manufactured had been exported, fulfilling the notification's condition. The Collector accepted this argument, stating that the import policy did not specify exclusive use for export production, and substantial export had taken place, justifying the benefit of the notification. 2. The Departmental Representative contended that the notification required exclusive use for export production, and any non-exported production would disqualify the benefit. However, the respondent's advocate argued that without explicit terms in the notification mandating exclusive use for export, the department's interpretation was unjustified. The notification stated the machines should be used for processing and manufacturing gems and jewellery "for the purpose of export." The respondent's position was that if any part of the production was exported, the machines were used for export purposes, even if also used for local sales. Adding words like "solely" or "exclusively" to the notification to require exclusive export use would be unwarranted as they were not present in the original text. 3. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment in a similar context, the Tribunal highlighted that the notification's language was crucial. In the cited case, the court ruled that an exemption applied even if duty-paid material was mixed with non-duty paid material, as the notification did not mandate exclusive use of duty-paid material. Similarly, in the present case, the Tribunal noted that the machines had been substantially used for gem and jewellery production, with a significant portion exported, in line with the notification's requirement. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the machines' use complied with the notification's conditions. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, emphasizing that the machines' substantial use for export production, alongside local sales, did not invalidate the benefit of the notification. The judgment underscored the importance of interpreting notifications based on their explicit language and conditions, without imposing additional requirements not present in the original text.
|
