Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 8308 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated)
(From the Judgment and Order dated)
Petitioner: Collector of Customs, Madras
Respondent: Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 8308 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated)
(From the Judgment and Order dated)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 05, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. N.K. Bajpai, Mr. K.K. Dhawan, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda and S.Rajappa, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CUSTOMS
Customs Act, 1962
Section 19 with Central Excise Tariff – Item 68 – Import of diesel engine set – Assessment of additional duty – Plea that import was of diesel engine and alternator and addi-tional duty was to be charged separately and benefit of exemption notification was to be given – Tribunal holding application of Section 19 – Justification. Held that the import was of two components is of no consequence. Section 19 was not applicable for purpose of assessing additional duty.
Held:
Section 19 applies to “duty” that is, “duty under the Customs Act”, as is clear from Section 2(15) of the Customs Act. The method of determination of Customs duty thereunder where goods consist of articles liable to different rates of Customs duty is not applicable for the purposes of assessment of addition-al duty under the Customs Tariff Act. That the said set comprised of a diesel engine and an alternator was of no consequence for the purposes of assessment of additional duty. There is no dispute that for the purposes of such assessment of the said set, Tariff Item 68 was applicable.
(Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The respondent imported a diesel engine set. The invoice there-of showed the price of Rs. 8,50,740/- for the said set along with standard spares and accessories. The Customs Department assessed the said set for the purposes of additional duty of Customs under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and, accordingly, charged additional duty at the rate of 8% ad valorem. The respondent filed a refund claim. It stated that the said set comprised of a diesel engine and an alternator. It provided the break up of the price of the said set, namely, Rs. 5,95,540/- for the diesel engine and Rs. 2,55,200/- for the alternator. It claimed that the additional duty should have been charged separately on each of the two components of the set said and the benefit of exemption notification in this regard should have been given. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The respondent’s appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) failed.
2. The respondent carried the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribun-al applied Section 19 of the Customs Act and came to the conclu-sion that the two main components of the said set, namely, the diesel engine and the generator, should have been separately assessed to additional duty and the benefit of the applicable exemption notifi-cations given. Against the order of the Tribunal, the Customs authorities have preferred this appeal.
3. In the first place, Section 19 of the Customs Act is inappli-cable to the assessment of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. Section 19 applies to “duty” that is, “duty under the Customs Act”, as is clear from Section 2(15) of the Customs Act. The method of determination of Customs duty thereunder where goods consist of articles liable to different rates of Customs duty is not applicable for the purposes of assessment of addition-al duty under the Customs Tariff Act.
4. As is clear from the order of the Tribunal, what respondent had imported was the said set. That was what the invoice referred to and it gave the price for it. That the said set comprised of a diesel engine and an alternator was of no consequence for the purposes of assessment of additional duty. There is no dispute that for the purposes of such assessment of the said set, Tariff Item 68 was applicable.
5. We think, in the circumstances, that the appeal should be allowed and the order of the Tribunal set aside. The order of the authorities below shall regulate the assessment of additional duty on the said set.
6. Order on the appeal accordingly. No order as to costs.
1. The respondent imported a diesel engine set. The invoice there-of showed the price of Rs. 8,50,740/- for the said set along with standard spares and accessories. The Customs Department assessed the said set for the purposes of additional duty of Customs under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and, accordingly, charged additional duty at the rate of 8% ad valorem. The respondent filed a refund claim. It stated that the said set comprised of a diesel engine and an alternator. It provided the break up of the price of the said set, namely, Rs. 5,95,540/- for the diesel engine and Rs. 2,55,200/- for the alternator. It claimed that the additional duty should have been charged separately on each of the two components of the set said and the benefit of exemption notification in this regard should have been given. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The respondent’s appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) failed.
2. The respondent carried the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribun-al applied Section 19 of the Customs Act and came to the conclu-sion that the two main components of the said set, namely, the diesel engine and the generator, should have been separately assessed to additional duty and the benefit of the applicable exemption notifi-cations given. Against the order of the Tribunal, the Customs authorities have preferred this appeal.
3. In the first place, Section 19 of the Customs Act is inappli-cable to the assessment of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. Section 19 applies to “duty” that is, “duty under the Customs Act”, as is clear from Section 2(15) of the Customs Act. The method of determination of Customs duty thereunder where goods consist of articles liable to different rates of Customs duty is not applicable for the purposes of assessment of addition-al duty under the Customs Tariff Act.
4. As is clear from the order of the Tribunal, what respondent had imported was the said set. That was what the invoice referred to and it gave the price for it. That the said set comprised of a diesel engine and an alternator was of no consequence for the purposes of assessment of additional duty. There is no dispute that for the purposes of such assessment of the said set, Tariff Item 68 was applicable.
5. We think, in the circumstances, that the appeal should be allowed and the order of the Tribunal set aside. The order of the authorities below shall regulate the assessment of additional duty on the said set.
6. Order on the appeal accordingly. No order as to costs.
