9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, there is no need of any production of end use certificate. The department has relied upon CBIC s circular No.74/1998-Cus dated 06.10.1998. However, it is a settled law that any condition which is not prescribed in the Notification the same cannot be read in the application of the Notification by issuing a board circular. We are completely agreed with this preposition as notification is a statute enacted by the Parliament which cannot be flouted by mere issuing a circular. Therefore, the board circular No. 74/1998-Cus dated 06.10.1998 is ultra vires to the Notification 23/98-Cus. dated 02.06.1998 in Sr. No.108 which does not prescribes the condition of end use certificate. We are of the clear view that in absence of any conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61) ELT 870 (Tri. Ahd) Inter Continental (India) V UOI 2003 (154) ELT 37 (Guj) UOI V Inter Continental (India) 2008 (226) ELT 16 (SC) Century Enka Ltd V. CCE, Pune - 2017 (358) ELT 1002 3. Shri Tara Prakash, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the appellant have availed the exemption Notification No.23/98-Cus Dated 02.06.1998 under Sr. No.108 description Serial No.1 which is reads as under : - S. No. Chapter or heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Standard Rate Additional duty Rate Condition No. 108. 64 or any other Chapter The following go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Pecific Exports - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 488 (Supreme Court), as also to another decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Handicraft Exports - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 6 (Supreme Court) are only to the effect that the importer will have to prove that the goods imported by him were meant for use in the leather industry. We find that there cannot be any quarrel on the above issue. Admittedly the Notification grants exemption to the goods imported for use in the leather industry and there should be some evidence that such goods were actually meant for use in the leather industry. Nowhere in the above decisions, the Hon ble Supreme Court laid down that such evidence can only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invoices issued by the appellants, indicating sale of the goods to the Leather Industry. The said certificate stands examined by the Original Adjudicating Authority, who has held in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the Chartered Accountant certificate simply show that the goods have been sold to manufacturer of leather goods but no where shows that the same has actually been used by them. He has accordingly, not accepted the certificate. We find no merits in the above reasoning of the appellate authority. The goods having been admittedly sold to the leather manufacturers, the reasonable presumption is that the same is used by them. The expression goods for use in the Leather Industry only means that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
