Per P.C. Jain :

Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The respondents herein imported steel wire rods in coils and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 204/92 dated 19.5.92 and also provided quantity based advance licence issued in favour of M/s. Indian Auto Industries for claiming such benefits. The said advanced licence had already been endorsed for transferability by the licensing Authorities and allowed the import of non alloy steel round/wire rods and confirming to British standard 220M07 and 230M07. The respondents were asked to specify as to what is the size and specifications of wire rods used in the resultant product i.e. bolts and hot forged nuts made of non-alloy steel. Vide their letter dated 7.11.94 the respondents replied that the size of the resultant product was within 6mm to 60mm. But they did not disclose any specifications of non-alloy steel used for the purpose of said resultant products.

2. On adjudication, it was held that the goods imported were not entitled to the benefit of duty free clearance under notification No. 204/92.

3. On appeal the respondents herein have succeeded. The lower appellate authority held that the catalogue produced by the respondents showing certain specifications of the imported goods tallied with the specifications given in the licence. Therefore on the strength of this fact, the lower appellate authority allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.

4. Main ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in the present appeal is that respondents were not able to give the specifications of the steel used in the resultant product and therefore it cannot be established that the steel imported now was required to be used in the manufacture of the resultant product. It is further stated that in view of the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Zenith Tin Works Vs. Collector of Customs vide order No. C/26/94-B2 dated 25.4.94, the benefit of duty under the relevant duty exemption notification was not extended in view of the fact that thickness of the imported product was not in conformity with the thickness of the material used in the manufacture of the resultant product in the case of Zenith Tin. On the same analogy, it is urged that since the particulars of specifications of the material used in the resultant product in this case have not been given by the respondents herein, therefore, it cannot be established by them that the imported goods under consideration are/were required for use in the manufacture of the resultant product. In the absence of this ingredient having been specified, the benefit of notification 204/94-Cus could not be extended. Ld. SDR has reiterated the aforesaid grounds. He has particularly highlighted the observations in the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs wherein it is stated, referring to the personal hearing, that thickness of material exported was within 6mm to 60mm whereas the thickness of the wire rod imported is between 9 mm to 23 mm. Ld. SDR Shri R.S. Sangia relying on this observations submitted that it is obvious that the thickness of rods between the range 9mm to 23mm could not be used in the manufacture of a resultant product and having thickness of 60 mm. Therefore, the benefit of notification No. 204/94 has been rightly denied according to the ld. JDR.

5. Opposing the contention ld. advocate Shri Lakshmi Kumaran submits that it is admitted that the importers have claimed this benefit under a licence having endorsement of transferability. The licence has been issued in terms of the duty exemption scheme in Export Policy 1992-1997. The terms of notification No. 204/94-Cus merely provides for exemption of materials which are covered by a quantity based duty exemption entitlement certificate for which the advance licence has been given in terms of the policy referred to above. He submits that the wordings used in the present notification are very wide as compared to those that were used in one of the