1. The dispute in the present case is whether PVC leather cloth imported by the appellants is entitled to the duty concession under Customs Notification No. 29/79 dated 10-2-1979. The lower authorities rejected the appellants' claim and hence this appeal which has come as transferred proceedings to us from the Central Government in terms of Section 131-B of the Cus- toms Act, 1962 for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before us. Shri L.U. Balani, Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the issue already stood resolved in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's decision in its order No. D-220/83 dated 21-4-1983 reported in 1983 ECR 894 D(CEGAT). The only difference between the decided case and the * present one is that the material in that case was PU leather cloth while it is PVC leather cloth in the present case.
2. Shri Sunder Rajan, JDR, submitted that the actual importers who had filed the Bill of Entry were M/s Nehal International and not the appellants. In the decided case, the goods had been imported by the parties who were actual users of the goods imported for manufacture of footwear for export. The benefit of the Notification was ex tended to them by the Tribunal having regard to the consideration that looking to the nature of the article it could not have been imported in the actual size and shape for ready use as embellishment for footwear. In the present case, the importers were not manufacturers. In reply Shri Balani submitted that the contention put forth by the _. Departmental Representative should not make any difference to the ratio of the decision contained in the decided case. The refund claim and the subsequent appeal filed by the appellants were accepted and adjudicated upon by the lower authorities. The appellants were in fact manufacturers and exporters of footwear and other leather goods.
3. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We do not see much substance in the objections raised by the learned JDR because even according to him there was no monitoring of the actual use of the material imported by importermanufacturers. When such is the situation, and the appellants are manufacturers of footwear (this position has not been controverted) and the claim and appeal from the appellants were entertained and adjudicated upon by the lower authorities, we do not see why they should not get benefit of the Notification in case the goods imported by them are found to fall under the Notification in question. On this last point we have the benefit of the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1983 ECR 894D (CEGAT). Applying the ratio of that decision we hold that the goods imported by the appellants, namely, PVC leather cloth, were entitled to the concessional rate of duty provided for in Customs Notification No. 29/79 dated 10-2-1979. We direct that the consequential relief shall be granted to them by the con- cerned Customs authorities within 3 months from the date of communication of this order.