9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 268/84-Cus., dated 30-10-1984. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of fuel efficient cars and for that purpose were importing parts and components under Notification No. 268/84-Cus., dated 30-10-1984 as amended. The goods were warehoused and thereafter cleared from the warehouse. When they were received in the factory and were actually put to use, it was found that they were damaged and were not fit for use for the purpose for which they had been imported. In terms of the aforesaid notification the importer had furnished an undertaking that the components imported shall be used for the specified purpose and that differential duty will be paid, if there was failure to comply with the said condition in addition to ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umed in the place of manufacture for the aforesaid purpose shall be maintained in the manner specified by the Asstt. Collector of Customs; (c) he shall produce the extract of such account duly certified by the manufacture evidencing receipt of the said components in the promises of the place of manufacture within a period of 3 months or such extended period as the Asstt. Collector of Customs may allow; and (d) he shall pay, on demand, in the event of his failure to comply with (a), (b) or (c) above, an amount equal to the difference between the duty leviable on such quantity of the said imported goods but for the exemption contained herein and that already paid at the time of importation. 5. It is seen that concessional rate of duty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be denied if some parts of the goods are not actually used. In this case the appellants themselves had admitted that the quantity found damaged was not used. They have only submitted that actual use was not contemplated by the said exemption notification. We find that the language of the exemption notification is clear and the benefit of concessional rate of duty was available only to those components which were used for the specified purpose. We, therefore, consider that this decision of the Hon ble Apex Court is not relevant for interpreting the present exemption notification before us. The judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Gopalswami Industries v. MMTC - 1987 (39) E.L.T. 390 Madras related to the wastages occuring in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
