9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification 314/85-Cus., dated 11-10-1985 in respect of moulds for EVA and rubber. The Assistant Collector rejected their claim on the ground that the moulds in question were described in the invoice and Bill of Entry as moulds for EVA and rubber and because of this description, held that since the moulds are capable of use for rubber also, the appellants were not eligible for Notification 314/85-Cus., which exempts moulds falling within Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act when imported for the manufacture of artificial plastic articles from Customs duty. The goods were assessed to duty under Tariff Heading 84.06 about which, there is no dispute. On appeal, the Assistant Collector s order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). 2. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turing other than plastic footwear. He further referred to their own description of the articles in the invoice by the supplier that the moulds are for EVA and rubber, which would show applicability for other than plastic also. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned consultant and the learned SDR. The notification 314/85 dated 11-10-1985 exempts moulds and dies falling within Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported for manufacture of artificial plastic articles from so much of the duty as is in excess of 25% and the whole of the additional duty subject to the condition that it is proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs that the moulds or dies have been imported for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch admittedly is new ground taken, relating to the industrial licence of the appellants. A perusal of this industrial licence 14993 dated 18-2-1985 shows that they were licenced for PVC footwear. No doubt, certain items were added on 17-11-1985, which again includes PVC compound and also convass and sports shoes and leather shoes, but we find that this amendment was much subsequent to the sales contract for the present consignment which was finalised as per record on 27-8-1985. Therefore, the claim of the appellants for exemption is found, in the circumstances, as discussed above, to be well-founded as the moulds have been shown by reasonable evidence as having been imported for manufacture of plastic footwear. In this view of the matter, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
