SARU INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, at the instance of the importer the only issue to be considered is whether they are entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 17/2001, dated 1 -3 -2001 in respect of the leather imported from Italy. The Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have taken the view that the commodity imported by the appellant is a patent leather and therefore, outside the our view of the notification, referred above. The above finding is under challenge before us at the instance of the importer.

(2.) According to the appellant, the commodity imported by it is finished leather and therefore, covered by Serial No. 136 in the notification dated 1 -3 -2001. The serial No. 136 reads as under : -

(3.) We heard learned Departmental Representative. The case of the Revenue is based on the fact that under Chapter 41 of the Indian Customs Tariff Act, finished leather products have been dealt with between subheading 41.04 to 41.07, whereas chamois leather, patent leather, patent laminated leather and metallised leathers have been grouped under separate and specific Headings 41.08 and 41.09. Therefore, according to the Revenue, the patent leather and finished leather are different commodity. A plain reading of Serial No. 136 of the Notification No. 17/2001 would make it clear that Legislature had intended to confine exemption benefit only to specific varieties of leather products, such as, wet blue and tanned leather and not all types of finished leather.