CC Vs. PEE GEE FABRICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals of the revenue challenging three different orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 29/97 -Cus. dated 1.4.1997 (as amended) to the respondents in respect of certain machines imported by them. The respondents are manufacturers of textile garments. M/s. Pee Gee Fabrics and M/s. India Dyeing Mills Pvt. Ltd. had imported fabric -dyeing machines, while M/s. Kumar Gaurav International had imported a calendering machine. The original authority denied the benefit of the above notification to the parties in respect of the imported machines, holding that the imported machines were not meant for direct use in garment -making and hence ineligible for the benefit of the notification. That authority relied on the Board's Circular No. 13/2000 dated 22.2.2000 wherein the Board clarified that, for the benefit of the notification, the machine should have been used in the manufacture/processing of garments. The first appellate authority did not accept the decision of the lower authority. It relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Rupa and Co. Ltd. 2002 (81) ECC 520 : 2002 (103) ECR 100 (T) and Premina Exports and Ors. Final Order Nos. 1043 - 1067/2002 dated 17.9.2002 since reported in 2002 (53) RLT 197 : 2002 (105) ECR 841 (T) and held that fabric -dyeing machine and calendering machine were covered by specific entries in Annexure -III to Notification No. 29/97 as amended by Notification No. 122/99 dated 4.11.1999 Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) thus granted the benefit of exemption to the imported goods and set aside the orders of the original authority. Hence the present appeals of the Revenue.

(2.) Heard both sides. Ld. DR reiterates the grounds of these appeals. He has placed reliance on the Board's circular to contend that only machines meant for direct use in garment -making could claim CVD exemption under the Notification. He has also submitted that the department has preferred appeal to the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's decision in Rupa and Co. Ltd. (supra) vide as also against the decision in Premina Exports and Ors. (supra). Ld. DR, however, has not claimed that the Apex Court has stayed the operation of our orders in Rupa and Co. (supra) and Premina Exports and Ors. (supra). Ld. Consultant for the respondents has justified the impugned orders on the strength of our decisions in the two cases.

(3.) We note that the issue involved in these appeals stands covered against the Revenue by decisions of this Tribunal in the aforecited cases, wherein it was held that machines used at any stage of the process of manufacture of garments were eligible for the benefit of exemption from CVD under the subject notification. In our judgment in Premina Exports and Ors. (supra), there is a flow -chart indicating the various stages of the process of garment -making. Dyeing and calendering of fabrics are two of these stages. The machines in question were, admittedly, used for dyeing or calendering. Therefore, the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the aforecited cases on the question of admissibility of exemption from CVD under the notification to the machines imported for use in garment -making squarely covers the instant case in favour of the assessees. The Apex Court has not stayed the operation of decision of the Tribunal. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals).