1999 (5) TMI 453 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification 341/76-Cus. for concessional rate of duty on imported goods described as 'both sides coated multi-layered pasted art board'.

Analysis:

1. Issue: Benefit of Notification 341/76-Cus. availability
- The Revenue argued that the benefit of Notification 341/76-Cus. was not applicable to the imported goods described as 'both sides coated multi-layered pasted art board' as the notification specifically mentioned concessional duty for multi-layered paper board or paste board without any mention of coated boards.
- The Revenue contended that the intention of the law maker was not to extend the benefit to coated multi-layered boards, and since the imported goods were described as art board, not specifically mentioned in the notification, the benefit should not be allowed.
- Additionally, the Revenue highlighted that the Collector (Appeals) relied on a decision in a previous case, which was under appeal in the Supreme Court, and argued that no samples were drawn in that case unlike in the present matter where samples confirmed the nature of the imported goods.

2. Issue: Nature of imported goods
- The Tribunal confirmed that the imported goods were indeed multi-layered paste-coated art board, as per the test report.
- It was established that the product fell under the category of multi-layered board, making it eligible for the notification's partial duty exemption, regardless of being coated on both sides.
- The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving art board where it was held that coating on both sides is a characteristic of art board, and such coating can be present on paste board and multi-layered boards without any restriction in the definition.

3. Decision and Conclusion
- Based on the analysis, the Tribunal rejected all three appeals filed by the Revenue, citing that the imported goods qualified for the benefit under Notification 341/76-Cus. as multi-layered paste-coated art board.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the decision in a previous case, which the Revenue contested, had not been overturned by the Supreme Court, and thus, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
- Furthermore, the Tribunal directed that the claim for refund should be processed considering the principle of unjust enrichment as per the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.