GIVO LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the remand of the matter by Apex Court by order dated 22 -9 -2005 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3472 -3474/2003 [2005 (189) E.L.T. A147 (S.C.)] filed by the appellant, this matter was taken up. Hon'ble Court while remanding the matter recorded that it is not in dispute that the issues arising in these Civil Appeals have been considered and decided by the decision of Apex Court in CCE (General), New Delhi and Ors. v. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics reported in : 2005 (186) E.L.T. 532 (S.C). Accordingly, Tribunal was directed to reconsider the matter in controversy for passing fresh orders in accordance with the law laid down in that case. Hon'ble Court in Para 20 of the above said reported judgment, considered the issue whether the goods and materials imported by the Respondent Company in the form of FEEP comprising of Equipments, Drawings, Designs and Plans are classifiable under Chapter Heading 49.01 or 49.06 of Schedule I of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Company is entitled to the benefit under Notification Nos. 107/93 -Cus., dated 30 -3 -1993 and 38/94 -Cus., dated 1 -3 -1994 or they are classifiable under Chapter Heading 4911.99 as contended by the department. Relevant tariff entry, HSN and respective notifications were reproduced in Paras. 22 to 26 of the reported Judgment to examine the issue. In Para 50 of the Judgment, Hon'ble Court observed that when the expression 'book' is not defined in the Act, natural and ordinary meaning of the said expression must be kept in view.

(2.) COUNSEL for Revenue contended before Hon'ble Court that Elecon Engineers Ltd. and Scientific Engineering Housing Ltd's case were rendered in the context of income -tax law. The basic issue therein was - whether 'books' were covered by the entry 'plant' under the Income Tax Act. Those decision, therefore, have no relevance to the issue in question since the Custom Tariff entries are different from income -tax. It was also submitted on behalf of Revenue that since the article in question was to be used by the assessee only and that was prepared according its requirement, that had no utility to others for which that cannot be said to be a 'book' in general sense.

(3.) IT was direction of Hon'ble Court that the ratio laid down in Wood Craft Products Ltd. and as reiterated in Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. : (1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) : (1997) 10 SSC 350) and in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Business Forms Ltd. Thr. O.L., : (2002 (142) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.)) is to be kept in mind while deciding as to whether Drawings, Designs, and Plans could or could not be 'printed book' covered by Chapter Heading 49.01, 49.06 or sub -heading 4911.99. The decision of a three judge Bench in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. : (2001 (128) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.)) was also considered relevant while deciding classification and the basic heading was 49.01.