Skip to content


Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided On

Reported in

(1996)(88)ELT284TriDel

Appellant

Star Paper Mills Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Excerpt:


.....read with notification no. 93/85 as paper-making machinery. it was fairly conceded by the ld. advocate for the appellants that item imported by the appellants can be used for pulp cutting and not for paper-making machinery. we find that since the notification exempts only paper-making machinery and component part thereof and in view of the strict [interpretation] of the notification, benefit in terms of the notification cannot be extended to the items imported by the appellants as it was rightly argued by the ld. dr. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below in denying the benefit in terms of the aforesaid notification. accordingly we uphold the impugned order and in the result the appeal filed by the party is hereby dismissed.

Judgment:


1. The refund claim filed by the assessee has been rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption in terms of Notification No. 93/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985.

2. Heard Shri M.P. Deb Nath, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.D. Sharma, ld. JDR for the Revenue.

3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that Notification No. 93/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985 exempts paper-making machinery and component part thereof falling under Tariff Item 84.31 as per S. No. 15 of the relevant notification. In the instant case the appellants have imported Rotor and Shaft which was claimed as parts of Raphinator classifiable under Heading 84.31 read with Notification No. 93/85 as paper-making machinery. It was fairly conceded by the ld. Advocate for the appellants that item imported by the appellants can be used for pulp cutting and not for paper-making machinery. We find that since the notification exempts only paper-making machinery and component part thereof and in view of the strict [interpretation] of the notification, benefit in terms of the notification cannot be extended to the items imported by the appellants as it was rightly argued by the ld. DR. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below in denying the benefit in terms of the aforesaid notification. Accordingly we uphold the impugned order and in the result the appeal filed by the party is hereby dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //