VAZIR POLYMERS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of common factual background calling in question a common judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 26-9-2005 [2006 (197) E.L.T. 402 (Tribunal)]. They have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. At the time of admission of the appeals, this Court had framed following two substantial questions of law:

(2.) Such questions arise in following factual background. The appellant No. 1, is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Company") and is engaged in the business of manufacture of plastic products like re-processed plastic granules, agglomerates, etc. The Company established its manufacturing unit in Kandla Free Trade Zone ("KAFTZ" for short). The Ministry of Commerce, Government of India issued a Letter of Permission ("LoP" for short) dated 27-12-1996 to the Company for setting up a new industrial unit in KAFTZ for manufacturing of plastic granules, shredding, grinding, pieces etc. subject to certain conditions. The items of manufacture were specified in the LoP. Such items were to be manufactured from waste/scrap/discarded/ obsolete plastic items. The annual capacity of production year-wise for five years was also specified. One of the conditions was that the unit had to export 100% of its production to General Currency Area countries. Condition No. 4 of the LoP which is the center of the controversy between the parties read as under :

(3.) The customs authorities issued a public notice dated 1-1-1997 laying down various conditions for import of plastic waste/scrap. We would take note of detailed conditions stated therein at a later stage. Suffice to note at this stage that according to the appellants, such public notice did not include any 100% EOU or those located in Export Processing Zones ("EPZ" for short). On the other hand, the Department contends that in terms of the above noted condition No. 4 of LoP, the appellants were required to fulfill all the requirements of imports at the time of actual import since the public notice laid down necessary requirements of importing plastic scrap/waste, such conditions would apply to all importers including the units situated in SEZ, such as the appellants. This is a central controversy between the parties.