TEXPORT INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these five appeals arise from a common Order -in -Appeal No. C. Cus. 479 to 483/98, dated 21 -5 -98. The appellants -exporters are holding licence for supply of garments. In terms of the Notification No. 81/95 -Cus., dated 31 -3 -1995 they imported hangers for exporting garments. The Commissioner has denied the benefit on the ground that the importer has to be a job worker and he has found that the appellants are only purchasing garments and not manufacturing garments on job work basis and on that ground has not granted the benefit of the notification to hangers.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the appellants ld. Consultant Shri M.S. Ku -maraswamy and ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj pointed out from the notification that the notification is for grant of benefit to the goods as defined in the explanation (ii) of the notification. The goods are imported for execution of an export order placed on the importer by the supplier of the goods for jobbing, repairing, servicing, restoration and conditioning or innovation. It is his submission that the export order has been placed on the importer for supply of garments along with hangers. To execute the export they require packing materials as well as hangers and they cannot be denied the benefit solely on the ground that they are not doing jobbing work. It is contended that they are getting manufacture the garments from the job workers and they also manufacture the same. Therefore the interpretation placed by the Commissioner's on the wording of the notification is not in terms of the judgment rendered on the interpreting a notification. Ld. DR defended the order and reiterated the Commissioner's reasoning the wording in a notification cannot be stretched to include parties other than job workers during the process of jobbing.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by both sides and notice that there is no restriction on the terms "importer" used in the notification. The words stated in the notification are that "that the goods are imported for execution of any export order placed on the importer by the supplier of goods for jobbing, repairing, servicing, restoration, reconditioning or renovation". It is seen that the term "importer" is not defined in the notification hence restrictions cannot be placed on the term "importer". The term "importer" includes both the suppliers of the garments as well as the manufacturer. The goods explained in the explanation (ii) of the notification includes hangers and packing materials. There is no dispute placed by the Commissioner with regard to the hanger being included in the terms "goods" given in the explanation (ii) of the notification. We also note that this very issue was considered by this Bench in the case of Sap -thagiri Leathers v. CC, Chennai reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 559 (Tri. - Chennai) wherein it is held that the notification is required to be extended to the packing materials. The said order was issued in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Prestige Engineering (I) Ltd. v. CC reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T 497 (S.C.). We have taken into consideration all the facts to accept the plea of the appellants. The appellants have a strong case and therefore the impugned order is required to be set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. Ordered accordingly.