Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1991 (6) TMI AT This
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 229/76 regarding exemption for imported materials. 2. Acceptability of end-use certificate for exemption eligibility. 3. Scope of remand order by CEGAT to Collector (Appeals). 4. Distinction between "films" and "foils" in trade parlance for exemption criteria. 5. Compliance with legal requirements for exemption under Notification No. 229/76. Analysis: 1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 229/76, which grants partial exemption to metallised or plain plastic film for the manufacture of electronic capacitors. The dispute arose when the appellants imported Styroflex Foils and claimed exemption under this notification. The Customs Authority enforced payment of differential duty as the end-use consumption certificate was not produced, leading to the appeal against the order dated 15-2-90 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. 2. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector (Appeals) to consider the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Collector (Appeals) found that the Superintendent's certificate did not specify the end-product manufacture, and the goods imported were foils, not films. Relying on a previous judgment, the Collector (Appeals) held that the goods described as foils could not be categorized as films, thus denying the appellants the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 229/76. 3. The scope of the remand order by CEGAT to the Collector (Appeals) was to consider the acceptability of the end-use certificate and dispose of the case accordingly. The Tribunal directed the Collector (Appeals) to take into account both the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the Superintendent of Central Excise's endorsement. The Collector (Appeals) was required to afford the appellants an opportunity to present their case and make a decision within two months. 4. The argument presented by the appellants' consultant was based on the interchangeability of the terms "film" and "foil" in trade parlance, referencing relevant industry standards. However, the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal emphasized the distinction between films and foils, especially in the context of the specific exemption criteria under Notification No. 229/76. 5. The Collector (Appeals) concluded that the end-use certificate provided by the appellants was insufficient to prove the utilization of the imported material in the specified end-product, as required by the notification. The failure to produce the consumption certificate within the stipulated time led to the enforcement of the bond terms, resulting in the payment of the demanded differential duty. The Collector (Appeals) decision was upheld based on legal compliance and the distinction between films and foils in trade practice, as established by relevant judgments.
|