The revenues case was that the subject goods were sheets which was one of the excepted goods mentioned in the table annexed to the Notification and therefore, number entitled to the exemption from duty.
The alternative submission of the learned companynsel for the assessee in the said case that a film of indefinite length and number in the form of individual cut pieces can be more appropriately described as sheetings rather than sheets was accepted.
It was held that the goods imported by the assessee were articles made of plastic.
FACTS Appellant is a partnership firm based in New Delhi dealing in the business, inter alia, of leather footwear materials and accessories.
One of the items regularly imported by the appellant is PU companyted leather fabrics which are extensively used in the leather footwear industry as insoles and midsoles.
228/76 dated 2.8.1976, an exemption from the customs duty payable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was granted in respect of articles made of plastics, all sorts, but excluding those specified in the table annexed thereto and falling within Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 51 of 1975 .
The judgment of M s. K. Mohan and Company Exports supra was reverse case where the assessees case was that the subject goods were metallised polyester films imported in the shape of film rolls entitling him to the exemption from the customs duty.
This order of the Tribunal was upheld by the High Court of Calcutta in C.A. No.1717 of 1995 Tirupati Garments another Vs.
Consequently, goods were accepted as insole and the benefit of Notification No.45/94 was granted to it.
For this adjudicating authority relied upon the judgment of this Court in Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs.
The claim for refund was based on the terms of a Notification of exemption issued under Section 25 1 of the Customs Act.
After hearing the parties, the judgment was reserved by the adjudicating authority but according to the appellant the decision is still awaited.
The appellant participated in the fresh adjudication.
This item was companyered originally by Notification No.224/85 and thereafter by the successor Notification No.45/94.
The same reads TABLE S. No.
Thereafter, the appellant have been clearing several companysignments of the same material and the department had permitted the clearance following the order of Commissioner which had become final since numberappeal, review or revision had been preferred against it.
This order was set aside and the case was remitted back for a fresh decision.
As on the date this item figures under the description insoles, midsoles and sheets thereof figuring in Sl.
It was observed that the Indian Standard Institution also defines sheets as a piece of plastic sheeting produced as an individual piece rather than in a companytinuous length or cut as an individual piece from a companytinuous length.
Aggrieved by the above, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench at Chennai for short the Tribunal which was numbered as C/457 of 1999 and that has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.4.2000.
Union of India others dated 11.6.1996.
M s. K. Mohan and Company Exports, 1989 SCC 337.
No.108 of List 3 A 3 in Notification No.20/99 which replaced the earlier Notification.
The said seizure resulted in a fresh adjudication in Chennai wherein the Commissioner passed an order holding that the appellant had failed to establish actual use in leather industry and companysequently denied the benefit of the Notification No.45/94.
Appellant received a companysignment of PU companyted insoles sheets for leather fabrics at Chennai in June, 1999.
A show cause numberice was issued by the Customs Authorities at Chennai claiming that the goods were number classifiable as insoles, midsoles and sheets thereof the said goods had numberuse in the leather industry and that the goods were capable of other uses and hence the end use requirement was number satisfied.
In February, 1996 another companysignment imported by the appellant and cleared by the Customs Authorities at Chennai was seized by the New Delhi Preventive Wing when the goods were being unloaded at the appellants Karol Bagh godown.
It has been held that the earlier decision of the Commissioner at Chennai in the adjudication arising in proceedings relating to the year 1995 was numberlonger valid in view of the later judgment of this Court in M s. K. Mohan and Company Exports, supra .
20/99 to the appellant on the ground that the subject goods were number sheets but films or running sheets and therefore, number entitled to the exemption from customs duty.
The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai by a companysidered order dated 28.2.1995 held that the subject goods were indeed capable of use in leather footwear industry as insole material.
Subsequently, the assessee made three applications for the refund of the amount of the additional duty of customs paid by it.
Revenue the respondent herein denied the benefit of the Notification No.20/99.
The case of the department was that the goods were sheets or foils or other rectangular or profile shapes and hence liable to duty.
On the other hand the assessees case was that they were films, a specie of plastic articles different from any mentioned in the table annexed.
Adverting to the finding recorded on the alternative submission of the companynsel for the assessee in the said case it was observed In the Apex Court judgment referred to, the term sheets and sheetings has been dealt with and the raw material was plastic films in rolled form and the Apex Court after due companysideration held that they are to be companysidered as sheetings and number cut to size.
The companytention raised by the companynsel for the appellant that the judgment in M s. K. Mohan and Company Exports supra was distinguishable was rejected by observing that the finding recorded by the apex Court in the said case in the companytext of description of goods in the Notification were para materia to the description available in the present Notification under companysideration.
Bhan, J. The point involved in the present appeal is Whether the expression insoles, midsoles and sheets thereof used in the exemption Notification No.20 of 1999 issued under the Customs Act, 1962 for short the Act can be interpreted to mean that the sheets rolled up for the companyvenience of loading and transport, would disentitle the assessee from the benefit of the Notification?
The annexed table excepted the following items from the purview of the exemption Tubes, rods, sheets, foils, sticks, other rectangular or profile shapes, whether laminated or number, and whether rigid or flexible including tubings and polyvinyl chloride sheets.
The assessees claim for refund was accepted by the Tribunal.
