Collector Of Customs, Bombay Vs. Bina Corporation Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 1746-52 of 1988
Petitioner: Collector Of Customs, Bombay
Respondent: Bina Corporation Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 1746-52 of 1988
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, C.J. & S.C. SEN & K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 20, 1995
Head Note:
CUSTOMS
Central Excise Tariff
Item 68, 15 – A (1)(2) – Countervailing duty – Cellulose acetate scrap – Refund of duty – Goods, if dutiable under Item 68 and duty was recoverable. Tribunal was rightly upheld refund order.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The respondent imported cellulose acetate scrap from U.S.A and cleared the same for home consumption on payment of customs duty including additional duty (countervailing duty). The additional duty was charged on the goods under Item 15-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff then in force. The assesses thereafter made an application for refund of the additional duty recovered in the said consignment on the plea that the goods in question were wrongly classified under Entry 15-A(1) and, therefore, the addi-tional duty was also wrongly recovered. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected this application. However, the contention of the respondent was that at best it could be classified under Item 15-A(2) and if so classified the goods would be exempt from payment of duty by virtue of Notification No. 228 of 1976 dated 2-8-1976. It is not necessary for us to traverse the further course of the proceeding except to state that when the matter reached the Tribunal the question for decision was whether the goods in question were liable to additional duty under Tariff Item 15-A(1) or 15-A(2) or the residuary Item 68. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since cellulose acetate scrap did not fall within any of the clauses of Tariff Item 15-A it was liable to duty under the residuary Item 68 only. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal relying on an earlier decision in the case of the same assessee (Bina Corpn. v. Collector of Customs) saw no merit in the Department’s appeal against the order of the Collec-tor (Appeals) who had taken the view that the correct classifica-tion would be under Tariff Item 68. Since the imports in question were between 18-7-1981 and 18-1-1982, i.e. before the introduc-tion of Explanation III to Tariff Item 15-A which came into effect from 1-3-1982, the question of considering the effect of that amendment did not arise in the instant appeals. We think that the view taken by the Tribunal for the above reasons is unassailable. The additional duty is recoverable on the basis of the classification of goods being under Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 15-A(1) or (2) and, therefore, the Collector (Appeals) rightly directed refund of the difference of the addi-tional duty which view the Tribunal has rightly upheld. We, therefore, do not see any substance in these appeals and dismiss them with no order as to costs.
In CA No. 2045 of 1989
2. The respondent imported cellulose acetate scrap between 16-10-1981 and 9-12-1981, i.e. prior to 1-3-1982 when Explanation III was added to Tariff Item 15-A. The assessee’s contention that the goods could not be classified under Tariff Item 15-A(1)was ac-cepted by the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Since Tariff Item 15-A(1) or (2) did not cover this scrap in question, the Collector (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal were right in reach-ing the conclusion that the goods in question were liable to be classified under Tariff Item 68. We have in Civil Appeals Nos. 1746-52 of 1988 upheld the contention of the respondent in this behalf and affirmed the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. The additional duty could, therefore, be recovered on the premise that the goods in question were charge-able to duty under Tariff Item 68 and not 15-A (1) or (2).The excise duty was, therefore, directed to be refunded by the Col-lector (Appeals) and we see no infirmity in that direction. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
1. The respondent imported cellulose acetate scrap from U.S.A and cleared the same for home consumption on payment of customs duty including additional duty (countervailing duty). The additional duty was charged on the goods under Item 15-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff then in force. The assesses thereafter made an application for refund of the additional duty recovered in the said consignment on the plea that the goods in question were wrongly classified under Entry 15-A(1) and, therefore, the addi-tional duty was also wrongly recovered. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected this application. However, the contention of the respondent was that at best it could be classified under Item 15-A(2) and if so classified the goods would be exempt from payment of duty by virtue of Notification No. 228 of 1976 dated 2-8-1976. It is not necessary for us to traverse the further course of the proceeding except to state that when the matter reached the Tribunal the question for decision was whether the goods in question were liable to additional duty under Tariff Item 15-A(1) or 15-A(2) or the residuary Item 68. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since cellulose acetate scrap did not fall within any of the clauses of Tariff Item 15-A it was liable to duty under the residuary Item 68 only. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal relying on an earlier decision in the case of the same assessee (Bina Corpn. v. Collector of Customs) saw no merit in the Department’s appeal against the order of the Collec-tor (Appeals) who had taken the view that the correct classifica-tion would be under Tariff Item 68. Since the imports in question were between 18-7-1981 and 18-1-1982, i.e. before the introduc-tion of Explanation III to Tariff Item 15-A which came into effect from 1-3-1982, the question of considering the effect of that amendment did not arise in the instant appeals. We think that the view taken by the Tribunal for the above reasons is unassailable. The additional duty is recoverable on the basis of the classification of goods being under Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 15-A(1) or (2) and, therefore, the Collector (Appeals) rightly directed refund of the difference of the addi-tional duty which view the Tribunal has rightly upheld. We, therefore, do not see any substance in these appeals and dismiss them with no order as to costs.
In CA No. 2045 of 1989
2. The respondent imported cellulose acetate scrap between 16-10-1981 and 9-12-1981, i.e. prior to 1-3-1982 when Explanation III was added to Tariff Item 15-A. The assessee’s contention that the goods could not be classified under Tariff Item 15-A(1)was ac-cepted by the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Since Tariff Item 15-A(1) or (2) did not cover this scrap in question, the Collector (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal were right in reach-ing the conclusion that the goods in question were liable to be classified under Tariff Item 68. We have in Civil Appeals Nos. 1746-52 of 1988 upheld the contention of the respondent in this behalf and affirmed the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. The additional duty could, therefore, be recovered on the premise that the goods in question were charge-able to duty under Tariff Item 68 and not 15-A (1) or (2).The excise duty was, therefore, directed to be refunded by the Col-lector (Appeals) and we see no infirmity in that direction. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
