9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. A claim for customs duty exemption is the subject of this appeal. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of fabrics. It imported One set of Weft Straightening Machine Type RMM and Weft Scanner and Controller Orthomat, Type FMC-10A C and claim concessional Customs Duty Assessment under Notification No. 21 of 2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that it is clear from the past notification that the intension was to grant exemption to both the machines in question. It is also the contention that there is no combined machine for weft straightening and calendaring as these two processes occur at different stages of textile processing. Reliance in this connection is being placed on Fairchild s Dictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses. 4. The learned Counsel has a submission that reading the notification as covering only a combination machine would render the entry nugatory as no such combination machine exists and benefit will not be available to the textile industry. The submission is that it is well settled that a statutory provision, including exemption, should be read so as to advance the purpose of the provision and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this factual situation, combining of the entry into one in the successor notifications can be understood only as continuing with the exemption to both the machines, which perform the functions separately and not to a combination machine. Clearly, the combined entry is not a recognition of technological change but of continuing with an existing exemption. Though, exemptions are exceptions, they s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
