COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY Vs. HANDICRAFT EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention on behalf of the appellant is that unless the imported goods are exclusively for the use of embellishments for footwear, the importer will not be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 29/cus. /79 dated 10/2/1979. We are unable to uphold this contention. The notification exempts goods specified in the Table set out herein under. The relevant portion of the notification is as under:

(2.) The notification does not say that the imported goods must be capable of being exclusively used as "buckles and other embellishments for footwear". In order to claim any exemption, the importer will have to show that the goods were meant to be used as embellishments for footwear. The fact that it was capable of being used for other purposes by itself will notdisqualify the imported goods from the benefit given by the aforesaid notification.

(3.) Our attention has been drawn to two judgments of this court. Both the judgments are in appeal from the tribunal and as a matter of fact in this case, the tribunal relied upon the judgment in Collector of Customs v. Aggarwal Commercial Corpn. The other judgment, relied upon by the assessee is Collector of Customs v, Chaganlal and Sons.