SAPTHAGIRI LEATHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these 12 appeals a common question of law and facts are involved hence, they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appellants claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 81/95 in respect of packing materials namely paper Board Boxes and Paper Trays for exporting Leather Wallets. The original authority have granted the benefit of notification in respect of packing materials such as Paper Board Boxes and Paper Trays, but denied on a defined ground. The C.N. 81/95 defines goods as raw materials, components, intermediates, consumables, parts, packing materials including hangers for garments, patterns, drawings, jigs, fixtures, moulds etc., and noting this definition in the notification, the benefit has been held to be admissible but, however, in view of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the cases of Prestige Engineering (I) Ltd. v. CC, Meerut, reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 497, the benefit of the said notification was denied to the consignment of packing material. Likewise the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has clearly noted that the benefit of notification C.N. 81/95 is applicable to packing materials but, however, in view of the Apex Court judgment he was not willing to grant the benefit of the notification and dismissed the appeals. Hence, all these appeals.

(2.) WE have heard Ld. Advocate, Shri. Radhakrishnan and Shri Arokiaswamy, Consultant along with Shri Suresh, CA, for the appellants and Ms. Bhagyadevi, SDR for the revenue.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we notice that in all these matters, the Tribunal by stay orders 708 to 711/98, dated 30 -7 -98 and No. 1414 - 1417, dated 8 -9 -99, had come to a prima facie conclusion that the Apex Court judgment was rendered in the context of Central Excise Notification No. 119/75 -C.E. pertaining to manufacture of goods in India by small scale units and the said judgment was distinguishable. Therefore, on that ground, in all these appeals waiver was granted in full. We have noticed from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already given a categorical finding that the notification of C.N. 81/95 is applicable to the packing materials in question but he applied the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s. Prestige Engg. (I) Ltd. We have perused this judgment and notice that the Hon'ble Apex Court had rendered its judgment in the context of the Notification No. 119/75 -C.E., which pertains to job work carried out by the small scale manufactures. Therefore, the Notification No. 119/75 -C.E. dealt with in M/s. Prestige Engg. India Ltd. has no bearing on the interpretation of Notification No. C.N. 81/95, dated 31 -3 -95, which is an independent notification, which grants exemption to goods imported in India from the duty of customs. In the said notification, the definition of "goods" is given as under :