TITAN WATCHES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BROADLY speaking, in all these matters, a common question of law arises for consideration. In fact, common arguments were advanced by learned Counsel on both sides, and hence these matters are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE common question that arises for consideration in these cases, again broadly putting it, is about the scope and extent of the exemption Notification bearing No. 45/85-Customs, dated 28-2-1985, issued by the Central Government, under Section 25 (1) of the Central Excises and Salt act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act'). THE said Exemption Notification (which will hereinafter be referred as'the Notification') prescribes concessional duty for horological machines and testing equipment (the goods)when imported into India, for the purpose of manufacture or assembly of mechanical wrist watches or parts thereof and quartz analog wrist watches or parts thereof. Of course, the Notification imposes as many as five conditions for availing the concession.

(3.) IN the common counter affidavit for W. P. Nos. 15313 to 15315 and 15317 of 1990, the respondents, while substantially admitting the facts narrated in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, have, however, taken a stand that the Exemption Notification 45/85 is comprised of two parts, namely, the first part refers to the type of goods which qualifies for the exemption, while the other part contains certain conditions to be complied with by persons who wish to avail the benefit of the Notification. They have taken a further stand, namely, that the expression'horological machine'has to be considered to refer only to such machines which are directly employed in the assembly or production of watches/watch components. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on a verification of the catalogue, the Authorities found that the impugned goods (machines) are bound to have contained other applications and are not meant exclusively for manufacture of watches/watch components. IN other words, according to the respondents, the machines imported do not satisfy the first part of Exemption notification and hence the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of notification 45/85. The definite stand taken by the respondents regarding the certificates issued by the DGTD reads as follows : - "i submit that the various grounds raised in the 24th para are not tenable. As stated and referred above, it is not disputed that Customs Notification No. 45/85 allows exemption in respect of those goods which are fully covered by essentiality certificate issued by the competent authority. But the acceptance of the certificate depends on the importers satisfying the requirement that the machines imported fall under the category horological machines/testing machines. The contention of the petitioners that the Customs authorities have only limited scope is not correct. The Customs authorities are the ultimate authorities in taking a decision to extend the benefit of the notification, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. They have to verify all the relevant documents at the time of the assessment and ensure that all the conditions laid down therein are complied with in toto by the importers who wish to avail the benefit of the notification. The DGTD Certificate is only in the nature of recommendation for concessional assessment. The applicability of the Customs notification for the goods imported, vests with the Customs authorities only. "* Further, the respondents have taken a stand that the exemption Notifications are required to be construed strictly according to the words and expressions used therein and also along with their associated conditions. The respondents have stated that the petitioners have failed to satisfy the Department that the imported goods fall under the category of 'horological machine'. The respondents, in fine, have justified the rejection of concessional rate of duty, and consequently the orders passed by them levying normal rate of duty.