A.K. EXPORTERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above captioned three appeals have been filed by the appellants against a common Order -in -Appeal. The only issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 45/94 -Cus., dated 1 -3 -94 in respect of imported goods (Poly Vinyl Alcohol) (PVA) or not. The benefit of this Notification has been denied to them on the ground that the goods were not actually used in terms of the above said Notification, though were capable of being used by them in their leather industry.

(2.) WE have heard both the sides. We find that the expression "for use" used in the Notification No. 45/94 -Cus., dated 1 -3 -94 has been interpreted by the Tribunal in the case of Sha Harakchand Dharmaji v. Commissioner of Customs, Madras - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 764 in a manner that actual use is not required for availing the benefit of the notification. The goods should be only capable of being used. Similar view had also been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Q -Max Test Equipment Pvt. Ltd. decided by Final Order No. 153 and 154/2003 dated 11 -3 -2003. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the imported goods in question were not actually used by the appellants in the leather industry but being capable of use in their factory, which fact had not been disputed, the benefit of notification referred to above, could not be denied to them in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Tribunal in the above referred cases. That being so, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained and we set aside the same. All the appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief if any, permissible under law.