2010 (6) TMI 426 - AT - Customs

Beverage Cans - Import of a manufactured or produced article - CVD will be equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India - additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act Held that - Aluminium Used Beverage Cans are not excisable, as these are not manufactured goods - goods in question are not excisable; therefore, in view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries (1999 -TMI - 45071 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - additional duty not payable - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Whether Aluminium Used Beverage Cans are liable for Additional Customs Duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:

The Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against an Order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the levy of Additional Customs Duty on Aluminium Used Beverage Cans. The Commissioner held that the cans were not excisable goods and hence not subject to the duty. The Revenue contended that the cans were excisable due to certain processes they undergo. The Tribunal noted the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which stated that if an article cannot be subjected to excise levy because it is not produced or manufactured, no additional duty can be imposed on the import of similar articles.

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation that for attracting additional duty, the actual manufacture or production of a like article in India is not necessary. It was emphasized that the goods being imported should be presumed to be capable of being manufactured or produced in India. In this case, the Tribunal found that Aluminium Used Beverage Cans were not excisable as they were discarded after use, making them non-manufactured goods. Therefore, following the Supreme Court's decision in Hyderabad Industries, the Tribunal concluded that the cans were not liable for Additional Customs Duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified that the key issue revolved around whether Aluminium Used Beverage Cans were subject to Additional Customs Duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The decision was based on the interpretation of excisability and the application of relevant precedents, particularly the Supreme Court's ruling in Hyderabad Industries. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the nature of the goods in question and their status as excisable or non-excisable, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the non-excisability of the Aluminium Used Beverage Cans.