ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-
1.1 The appellants herein filed a bill of entry describing the goods to be cleared as “1 No. TEE Shirt Printing Curing Machine”. They claimed assessment under Heading 8443.50 at a concessional rate of auxiliary duty prescribed under Notification No. 108/89, dated 1-3-1989. As regards ITC, it was claimed that the item fell under OGL Appendix 1, Part B, Item No. 7, S. No. 105 of ITC Policy AM 1988-91.
1.2 On examination of the goods alongwith the invoice the Customs authorities found that there were two machines bearing make Nos. D-19 and GEM 6 respectively. One of the machines i.e. D-19 was a mechanical print drier whereas GEM 6 was a panel printer. The appellants herein vide their letter dated 30-11-1989 claimed that the printing and curing processes were continuous processes and that the entry in the Policy as well as in the notification which are identical, should be taken to include both the machines.
1.3 The adjudicating authority on receipt of a clarification from the CCI & E’s office extended the benefit of OGL to the aforesaid machines since it found that it was covered by the Entry ‘TEE Shirt Printing Curing Machine which has been clarified by the CCI & E’s office to be read as “Printing & Curing Machine”. The adjudicating authority, however, has not extended the benefit of Notification No. 108/89 read with Notification 16/85 (S. No. 103 -which also reads as “TEE Shirt Printing Curing Machine). The adjudicating authority, however, has extended the benefit of Notification 59/89 which prescribes the same rate of basic Customs duty but does not prescribe a lower rate of auxiliary duty as is available under Notification No. 108/89. Following is the reasoning of the adjudicating authority in not extending the benefit of lower assessment of Customs duty :-
“…The relevant entry in Notification No. 16/85-Cus. reads as ‘T-Shirt Printing Curing Machine’. The entry conveys the impression that the goods listed therein are a single composite machine. Earlier in the order due to the interpretation given and amendment made by the ITC Authority, due benefit was given to the importers. That logic cannot extend the interpretation of the exemption notification. The exemption notification is to be interpreted strictly where the assessing authority (or for that matter the adjudicating authority) cannot attempt to examine the rationale behind the notification. Therefore, I have to hold that the benefit of Notification 109/89 is not available to the impugned goods….”
1.4 It is against the aforesaid finding of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order that the appellants have come in appeal before this Tribunal.
2. Learned advocate, Shri Harbans Singh for the appellants has urged that the reasoning of the adjudicating authority is erroneous. Entries are identical under OGL as well as in the exemption notification. When the adjudicating authority has given the benefit of OGL for the same entry, there is no reason as to why the benefit should not be given for the purpose of assessment. Only reason given is that the assessing authorities cannot go behind the rationale of the notification. Since the entry gives an impression that it covers only one machine, therefore, the benefit has been denied. He submits that this reasoning is not correct because printing and curing in the case of TEE Shirts’ are simultaneous process taken one immediately after the other. The two machines are, therefore, interdependent. This is also the view of the Principal of Government Institute of Textile Chemistry & Knitting Technology, Ludhiana which reads as follows :-
“This is to certify that the TEE Shirt Printing and Curing Machine is one machine separated in two parts, dependent on each other. The printing and curing of the Tee Shirts are done simultaneously in one process. Function of printing machine is for placing colours according to designs and curing machine is for fixing of colours placed.
The process of Printing and Curing has to be done separately because curing machine has heater in it for fixation of colours. Whereas there is no heater used in Printing Machine.”
He has, therefore, urged that the benefit of Notification No. 108/89 read with Notification 16/85 should be extended to the appellants.
3. Learned SDR, Shri S.K. Roy, on the other hand has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. He has submitted that it is not disputed that there are two separate machines – one for printing and another for curing – which have been imported by the appellants. Plain reading of the entry in Notification 16/85, as set out earlier, clearly gives an impression that it is one machine which should do both the processes of printing as well as curing. He, therefore, submits that going by the plain language of the entry in the notification, the goods imported are not covered by the said Notification No. 16/85 read with Notification 108/89. Hence, he submits that the benefit of the said notification cannot be extended to the appellants. Once the language is clear one need not go into the rationale behind the notification, as observed by the adjudicating authority and the plain meaning to the language has to be given.
4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We are inclined to agree with the learned advocate that the scope of entry in Notification 16/85 should not be different from that of the admitted scope of the identical entry in the ITC Policy in the instant case. Entry in Notification 16/85 i.e. ‘TEE Shirt Printing Curing Machine cannot be read in isolation from the preamble to the said Notification 16/85. It is apparent that the Notification 16/85 exempts the goods specified in Col. 2 of the Table to the Notification which are for use in garment or hosiery industry. Large number of machines have been indicated in the Table which are for use in the aforesaid industry. The purpose of the notification, therefore, is to grant benefit to the specified machinery for utilisation in garment or hosiery industry. It is not denied by the department that the aforesaid two machines are for garment or hosiery industry. Therefore, a liberal view of the entry at S. No. 103 has to be taken keeping in view the aforesaid object of the notification. Such an approach of interpreting a notification would be in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Park Exports [1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC)].
4.1. We also observe that the entry by itself, that is, ‘TEE Shirt Printing Curing Machine, is also not beyond ambiguity. The entry can mean several machines such as –
(1) TEE Shirt Printing/Curing Machine.
(2) TEE Shirt Printing and Curing Machine.
(3) TEE Shirt Printing or Curing Machine.
Both the words ‘Printing’ and ‘Curing’ occurring together without any words in between or without any sign in between is clearly confusing. From that angle also, we are of the view that benefit should be extended to the importer because of the inherent ambiguity in the entry at S. No. 103 in the notification. There is also nothing on the record to controvert the certificate given by the Principal of Government Institute of Textile Chemistry & Knitting Technology, Ludhiana from the side of the department. This certificate clearly supports the view of the appellants. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that the benefit of Notification 108/89 read with 16/85 should be extended to the appellants. We order accordingly.
5. Appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.