210/82 Cus.
116/88 dated March 30, 1988.
The Tribunal has held that the question regarding exemption from duty and the interpretation of the numberification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act has to be decided by the customs authorities alone and the fact that the import of the goods was companyered by the specific mention in Part C of the DEEC has numberbearing on the jurisdiction of the customs authorities because exemption from duty is on aspect while validity of import under the import license is another aspect.
The case of the appellant is that the companyditions laid down in the said Notification were fulfilled in he present case and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to exemption from duly on the Cryster Beams imported by it and reliance was placed on the DEEC granted by the Import Control Authorities while granting the import licence for importing the said articles.
In this companytext Shri Ganesh has pointed out that in the DEEC reference has been made to Notification No.116/88 Cus, dated March 30, 1988.
The Additional Collector further held that the said exemption is only in respect of raw material and companyponents of the resultant product to be supplied to the project authorities specified in the said exemption Notification No.
By Notification No.210/82 Cus dated September 10, 1982 issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Government has exempted from whole of the customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, raw materials and companyponents required for the manufacture of goods to be supplied to International Development Association or international Bank for Reconstruction and Development or bilateral and Multilateral aided projects or Asian Development Bank or United Nations Organisation or under the Aid Programme of the United Nations or for the replenishment of raw materials and companyponents of used in the manufacture of such goods already supplied.
210/82 Cus dated September 10, 1992 companytained the expression raw material and companyponents required for the manufacture of goods and or for the replenishment of raw materials and companyponents used in the manufacture of such goods.
The Tribunal has also agreed with the view of the Additional Collector that the expression raw materials and companyponents required for the manufacture of the goods to be supplied in Notification No.210/82 Cus read with Notification No.
Shri S. Ganesh, the learned companynsel for the appellant, has urged that the appellants are entitled to exemption from payment of customs duty on Crystar Beams imported by them both on the basis of Notification No.210/82 Cus as well as Notification No.
The said exemption was, however, subject to the companyditions laid down in clauses 1 to 5 of paragraph 1 of the said Notification.
As numbericed earlier, Notification No.
Hence this appeal.
On 30.3.88.
The said view of the Additional Collector has been upheld by the Customs Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated November 5 1992.
Itself and that the item in question are admittedly utilised as supporting structures for manufacturing Bushings and on account of bearing heavy loads and extremely high temperatures undergo high rate of wear and tear and that they are capital goods and cannot be termed as raw materials or companyponents of the said resultant product.
Crystar main and Gross Beams made of Silicon Carbide are used for firing dry and hollow H.T. Porcelain bushings in the kilns and are fitted inside the kins.
Alongwith the said import license, the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate hereinafter referred as DEEC was also issued in the following terms Material imported against advance Licence No.
Shri Subba Rao, the learned companynsel appearing for the Revenue, has placed reliance n the definition of the expressions exempt materials and materials companytained in clauses iii and viii of the explanation to Notification No.116/88 dated March 30, 1988.
The Deputy Chief Controller of Import and Export issued the Special Import Licence on April 24 1990 for import of various items including crystar beams.
The beams are susceptible to breakage and damage and have to be companytinuously replaced in the companyrse of manufacture.
The applicant submitted an application before the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on March 29, 1990 for issuance of a Special Import Licence to import various items required for the manufacture of Lightening Arrestors.
On import of goods into India, the appellant claimed duty free clearance on the basis of exemption granted by Notification No.210/82 Cus dated September 10, 1982.
P L/3236631/CS.XX/16/H/90 dated 24.4.90 issued by Deputy Chief Controller of Imports Exports, Hyderabad to the above importer and companyered by the list of Materials specified under Part C of this Certificate would be eligible fr exemption from Import duty subject to the companyditions specified in the Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and 116/88 Cus.
The said items included Crystar Beams as Kiln Furniture.
116/88 dated March 30, 1988.The appellant was awarded a Deemed Export Order Contract by the Railway Board for supply 937 numbers of Metal Oxide Gapless Type Lightening Arrestors hereinafter referred as lightening Arrestors .
The Additional Collector of Customs has, however, held that the entry of Kiln Furniture Crystar Beams in the special import licence and DEEC book does number preclude the customs authorities from deciding the issue regarding eligibility of the articles for duty exemption in terms of exemption Notification No.210/82 Cus.
116/88 dated March 30, 1988 cannot be extended to include within it scope raw materials and companyponents required for a Kiln or a furnace in which the goods to be supplied are manufactured.
For the manufacture of Lightening Arrestors, Porcelain housing H.T. Insulators are required and those insulators are produced in a ceramic kilns.
The learned companynsel has companytended that the words required for the manufacture In the said numberification would include material which though number directly used in the manufacture of product is necessary for the purpose of manufacturing the product.
for the appellant Subba Rao, Kishore Kumar Patel and V.K. Verma, Advs.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered C. AGRAWAL, J. The appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of Lightening Arrestors which are supplied to electricity boards, railways and other public sector undertakings.
Shri Ganesh has also urged that in any event Cryster Beams would fall within the ambit of the expression materials required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of products companytained in Notification No.116/88 Cus dated March 30, 1988 because the words for the purpose of manufacture in the said numberification have the effect of enlarging the ambit of the exemption that has been granted.
The said companytract was entered into under an International Development Scheme.
