VIJAY SOLVEX LTD. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, filed by M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd., the issue involved is whether the duty is payable by them on the quantity of imported goods received short in their factory.

(2.) SHRI Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil; that they import Crude Palm Oil, Rape Seed Oil, Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil from abroad and avail concessional rate of Customs duty after complying with the conditions of the Notification and also after complying with the procedure as laid down in the 'Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the quantity of oil received in the factory was less than the quantity cleared under Bill of Entry. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the imported goods being in liquid form are transported in tankers; that at the port the oil is transferred from ship to the storage tanks of the port authority and thereafter into tankers for transportation; that such type of handling at the port necessarily results in loss of some small quantity of imported goods; that such handling loss in an unavoidable phenomena in case of handling of liquids and since the quantity is not measured after being transferred into the tankers for onward transportation, no certificate in this regard is issued either by port authorities or by Customs; that as such the quantity received at destination is invariably less than the quantity shown in the clearance documents. He also contended that the sow cause notice itself shows that the quantity of oil in question was not received in their factory; that there is no allegation of non -account al or disposal of the goods by the Appellants and as such duty cannot be demanded under Rule 8 of the Customs Rule, 1996. He relied upon the decision in the case of National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. C.C. (Import), Mumbai, 2000 (126) ELT 1072 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal has held that the importer cannot be called upon to pay duty on the quantity of raw naptha of about 1% which is a volatile substance; that this decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2002 (142) ELT A280.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R. , submitted that the benefit of exemption is available only when vegetable oil is imported for the manufacture of oil commonly known as vanaspati; that as the quantity received short in the factory has not been used for manufacture of oil commonly known as vanasapati the benefit of notification cannot be extended to them.