CC Vs. SUVARNA FLOREX LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the Order -in -Original passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, has filed the present appeal.

(2.) AS per facts on record, the respondent -importer imported one industrial cooling unit to be installed in their 100% Export Processing Unit and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 126/94 dated 3.6.1994. The said notification grants exemption to the specified goods for use in the manufacture of export foods by 100% EOU. Item No. 1 of Annexure -1 attached to the said notification extends exemption to green house equipment, accessories etc. The respondents claimed the benefit under the said serial number. The benefit was originally extended to them by the customs authorities. However, subsequently, they were issued a show cause notice raising demand against them on the ground that the industrial cooling unit was not eligible for the full exemption benefit available to flori -cultural unit under the notification in question. During adjudication before the AC, the respondent claimed the benefit of alternative notification No. 13/81 -Cus. which extends the benefit to the capital goods used in flori -cultural unit. The AC vide his impugned order denied benefit of notification No. 126/94 as also of notification No. 13/81. The benefit of notification No. 13/81 was denied by observing that the flori -cultural activities carried out by the respondents have not been done under the Customs Bond and as such, the conditions of the notification do not stand satisfied by the importers.

(3.) BEING aggrieved with the above order of the AC, the respondents herein filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). He also did not find favour with the respondent's contention that the subsequent Notification No. 67/96 -Cus. dated 3.9.1996 amending earlier notification No. 126/94 and incorporating cooling equipment for cold room as one of the items entitled for exemption, is to be treated as clarificatory and retrospective in application. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit of notification No. 13/81 to the respondents and allowed their appeal. Accordingly, the Revenue being aggrieved with the said order has filed the present appeal.