Page 212 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

602 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

is not coming out from the documents that what is the date of import of the
goods. As per the Section 2(23) of Customs Act, the definition of import is as un-
der.
“(23) “import”, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions,
means bringing into India from a place outside India;”
7. From the plain reading of the definition of import it is clear that
when the goods enter into territorial water of India that is the stage of comple-
tion of import into India and not the date of filing of Bill of Entry, therefore, if the
appellant possess the license on or before date of import, the goods imported are
covered by the license and same will not be liable for confiscation. Though in the
policy the date of reckoning the import is given is as per the date of Bill of Lad-
ing but the import gets completed only when goods enters into India. Therefore,
the contention of the lower authorities that the appellant was not possessing the
license on the date of Bill of Lading is not correct. However, to finally decide the
issue, the date of import is very relevant which is not available on record.
8. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to
the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after verifying the date of
import.
9. Considering the above observations, appeal is allowed by way of
remand to the adjudicating authority.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 5-2-2020)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 602 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[COURT NO. III]
S/Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T)
ARIES DYECHEM INDUSTRIES
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD
Final Order Nos. A/10436-10437/2020-WZB/AHD, dated 11-2-2020 in Appeal
Nos. C/69-70/2012
Job work or sale of imported goods - Supply of imported Beta Napthol
to job worker and Gamma Acid received back after job work - Beta Napthol
supplied not on sale basis but only for job work purpose - Total value includ-
ing value of Beta Napthol considered in invoice by job worker but since Beta
Napthol given by assessee to job worker free of cost its value reduced from
total value - Final sale value not including value of Beta Napthol - No sale of
Beta Napthol to assessee even as per job worker’s invoice - Transaction of Beta
Napthol by assessee to job worker does not fall under terms “sale” or “trans-
ferred in other manner” - No contravention of condition attached to Notifica-
tion Nos. 93/2004-Cus. and 32/2005-Cus. - Similar transaction endorsed as job
work in earlier orders of Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, High
Court and Supreme Court - Credence ought to have been given to such prece-
dence unless distinguished on facts - Advance licence holder cannot be pro-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  212