Case: Tata Tea Ltd Vs. The Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai

The appellant is a tea company. In the year 1982 it imported two decanter machines from Germany. The customs duty, additional duty and the other duties leviable thereon were duly paid. The machines were installed at the tea factory of the appellant situated at Munnar (Kerala). In the year 1992 some parts of the machine requiring such repairs as could not be carried out in India, were sent to Germany after obtaining previous permission of the Government of India. The parts were repaired and thereafterin July, 1993. The appellant claimed exemption from payment of customs duty under Notification No. 13/81 which was denied by the Assistant Collector of Customs. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was allowed. The Revenue preferred a further appeal before the CEGAT which has been allowed and the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs restored. Cross appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, the appellant has filed these appeals under Section 130 E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Court's reasoning:
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the definition of `import as given in clause 23 of Section 2, imported goods would includegoods as well and therefore the goods sent out of India andwould also be liable to payment of duty in the same manner in which they would have been liable if imported for the first time in India. In the matter of goods sent out for repairs only there is exemption notification No. 204/76. The benefit thereof has been taken by the appellant. A perusal of Import Export Policyand Exemption Notification No. 13/81 clearly shows that the benefit thereof was not available to the appellant in the case at hand. The machinery parts exported for repairs andthereafter did not require any licence for the import of the goods, which licence is one of the conditions precedent to attract applicability of Notification No. 13/81. Same is the inference which flows from the provisions contained in paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 31 of the Policy. Para 172 of the Policy makes it legal toafter repairs abroad the machinery and equipment exported specifically for the purpose of repairs and also allows release of foreign exchange payment for the purpose. Both these things may not have been permissible but for para 172 of the Policy. This is the only effect of para 172. Reliance on para 172 so as to link the Policy with Notification NO. 13/81 is misconceived. Para 159, while permitting conversion of an existing DTA into EQU, specifically excludes any concession in duties and tax (under the Policy) being made available to plant and machinery already installed. The parts exported andby the appellant were of the machinery `already installed on the date of promulgation of the Policy. They were certainly not covered thereunder.