9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants imported the impugned goods under Bill of Entry No. 793566 dated 20-7-1999 from U.S.A. for and on behalf of Telecommunication Engineering Centre, Department of Telecommunication (TEC, in short); that they claimed exemption from payment of Customs duty under Notification No. 51/96-Cus. which exempts scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipments if the importer, Public funded research institution, is registered with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; that the Customs cleared the consignment extending the exemption benefit; that subsequently a show cause-notice dated 20-12-1999 was issued for denying the benefit of Notification and for demanding customs duty and for imposing penalty; that the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation. The ld. Advocate also relied upon the decision in Gujarat Coop. Oil Seeds Growers Ltd. v. C.C.E., Baroda, 1999 (114) E.L.T. 376 (S.C.) wherein a subsequent Notification was held to be a clarifcatory one. Reliance was also placed upon the following decisions : (i) Collector of Customs v. Shaw Wallace - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 143 (T). (ii) CCE, Shillong v. Wood Crafts Products Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) (iii) Super Casette Industries Ltd. v. CC - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 105 (T) (iv) Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Cochin - 1995 (79) E.L.T. 111 (T) 4.Countering the arguments, Shri K.K. Goel, ld. SDR, submitted that column (2) of the Table, annexed to the Notification No. 51/96-Cus. specified the nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinning Weaving Mills v. C.C.E., Cochin - 1978 E.L.T. J 375 and I.T.C. Bhadrachalam v. CCE - [1994 (71) E.L.T. 334 (S.C.) = 1994 (52) ECR 331 (S.C.)]. 5.In reply, the ld. Advocate mentioned that the words "the goods are imported by or for delivery to" in Col. (4) by Amending Notification 20/2000-Cus. are to be read with Col. (2) and as such goods can be imported by the Appellants "for" the public funded research institution; that the intent and purpose of the Notification is to be taken into consideration while interpreting the same; that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pre Cast Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, [2000 (118) E.L.T. 288 (Tribunal-LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 501] held that exemption notification should be interpreted in a manner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t (including Computers); (b) accessories, spare parts and consumables thereof; (c) Computer software compact Disc-Read only Memory (CD ROM) recorded magnetic tapes microfilms microfliches. If the importer (i) is registered with the Govt. of India in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, (ii) Produces, at the time of importation, a cer- tificate from the head of the Institution, in each case, certifying that the said goods are required for research purposes only. After amendment by Notification No. 20/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000, condition in Col. No. (4) of the Table annexed to Notification No. 51/96-Cus. reads as under : (i) the goods are imported by or for delivery to (a) a public funded research inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by the Supreme Court in Cannanore Spg. Wvg. Mills case, supra, wherein the Supreme Court held that "The rule making authority had not been vested with the power under Central Excises and Salt Act to make rules with retrospective effect. Therefore the retrospective effect purported to be given under Exh. P-12, (Notification) was beyond the powers of the rule making authority." Further the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Rotomould (India) Pvt. Ltd., [2000 (119) E.L.T. 235 (Tribunal-LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 698] held that Notification No. 119/89 dated 27-4-1989 which amended Notification No. 175/86-C.E. enhancing the value of clearances of goods by a small scale unit during the preceding financial year from Rs. 150 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court came to the conclusion that words 'similar laminated wood' in Heading 44.08 of Central Excise Tariff must be construed to include within it block boards of all kinds. In view of this finding, the Apex Court observed that the amendment in Note 5 to Chapter 44 with effect from 19-3-90 and thereafter w.e.f. 1-3-1992 merely clarified and made explicit that which was implicit in the Heading throughout. Similarly in Gujarat Co-op. Oil Seeds case, supra, Supreme Court had no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Entry 2 of Notification No. 12/89 related to all goods other than Entry No. 1 and in view of this the subsequent Notification was held to be merely a clarificatory one. No such claim can be made from the language of the Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
