9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Locus standi of the present appellants to file the revision application. 2. Justification of levying countervailing duty on the goods under Item 11A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Analysis: Issue 1: Locus standi of the present appellants The issue of locus standi was raised as the Bill of Entry was in the name of one company, but the refund application and subsequent appeal were filed by another company. The appellants argued that they had the necessary locus standi as they had purchased the goods on high seas basis and made all necessary payments. The Department contended that the appellants did not qualify as a "person aggrieved" under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the appellants had a legitimate cause to be aggrieved by the authorities' orders. It was noted that the Department had chosen to deal with the appellants' claim and the Appellate Collector had entertained their appeal, indicating their locus standi. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellants had the necessary locus standi to pursue the matter. Issue 2: Justification of levying countervailing duty The main question was whether the Customs authorities were justified in levying countervailing duty on the goods under Item 11A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The appellants argued that the goods, described as white petroleum jelly, were not covered by the term "grease" under Item 11A. They provided references from Encyclopaedia Britannica and Webster's Dictionary to support their argument. Additionally, they relied on a Tariff Advice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs classifying the goods under a different item. The Department contended that the goods fell under Item 11A and were correctly classified for countervailing duty. However, they failed to provide a clear definition of "grease" or substantial reasoning for the classification. The Tribunal found that the goods, being white petroleum jelly of U.S.P. grade, were correctly classifiable under a different item for countervailing duty purposes. As no countervailing duty was leviable on goods under that item at the relevant time, the levy of countervailing duty on the goods was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the refund of the countervailing duty charged on the goods.
|
