JAIN ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal out of which this review petition arises was disposed of on 2/2/1994. The judgment of that date noted in its paragraph 2 that the appellant had been given the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 153-Cus/86 dated 1/3/1986 which came to be amended by Notification No. 208-Cus dated 13/3/1986, though the same as available under these notifications was initially denied. A statement has been made in the review petition that the benefit accruing pursuant to these notifications had really not been granted to the appellant. Shri Dholakia appearing for the appellant contends that he had made no such submission as well. As to this submission, it may be observed that the notings in the minute book of both of us show that such statement had been made by Shri Dholakia. Be that as it may, as the appellant had claimed exemption under these notifications and it has been now submitted that the exemption has not been granted, it has to be decided whether the appellant was entitled to the exemption under these notifications.

(2.) The exemption relates to payment of custom duty in respect of manufacturing of rod bushes and camshaft bushes which are part of combustion engines. For our purpose we may start with certain benefits given by Notification No. 281-Cus/76. As the appellant had not been granted benefit of exemption given by this notification, he approached this court in Jain Engineering Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and this court by itsjudgment dated 18/9/1987 took the view that the appellant was entitled to exemption on the manufacturing of the aforesaid goods. Notification No. 281-Cus/76 came to be amended vide Notification No. 103-Cus/86 and the same held the field till 28/2/1986. The appellant was given the benefit of the amended notification as well. Thereafter was issued Notification No. 153-Cus/86 on 1/3/1986 which came to be amended by Notification No. 208-Cus dated 13/3/1986. Finally came Notification No. 69-Cus/87 dated 1/3/1987 which was issued after the Customs Tariff Act had been amended. In the appeal which was disposed of on 2/2/1994 we had dealt with the question as to whether the appellant is entitled to the exemption as visualised by the notification dated 1/3/1987. Nothing further is required to be stated qua that notification. What is left for our determination is regarding the case of the appellant that he was entitled to the benefit of the exemption visualised by the aforesaid notification dated 1/3/1986 as amended on 13/3/1986.

(3.) Shri Dholakia contends that the benefit under the aforesaid notifications is almost automatic in view of this court's judgment in CA No. 335 of 1986 inasmuch as in the two notifications under consideration there is only a formal change in the purport of the Notification No. 281-Cus/76 the same being that what was stated in the 1976 notification in description form is contained in the two notifications in tabular form. The denial of the examination visualised by two notifications under consideration by Collector of Customs is, according to Shri Dholakia, misconceived; indeed, arbitrary.