1989 (8) TMI 368 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of additional grounds of appeal.
2. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 40/78.
3. Applicability of the date of duty payment for determining the rate of duty.
4. Eligibility for special discount in valuation.
5. Levy of Countervailing Duty (C.V. Duty).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Additional Grounds of Appeal:
The appellants raised additional grounds of appeal, arguing that the duty was paid on 3-10-1980, and thus the amended Notification No. 111/80-Cus., dated 19-6-1980, should apply. The Tribunal admitted additional ground No. 16, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sarjoo PrasadRam Kumar, which allows raising jurisdictional objections at any stage. However, additional ground No. 17, regarding the levy of C.V. Duty, was rejected as it was not raised before any authority and no separate refund claim was filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty under Notification No. 40/78:
The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 40/78, which provides a concessional rate of 25% ad valorem for "Tool Room Precision Optical Co-ordinate Jig Boring Machine including Numerical (Control)." The adjudication authority found that the imported machine lacked a built-in optical coordinate system and had a digital readout added at an additional price. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the notification clearly covers only jig boring machines with a built-in optical coordinate system and inclusive of numerical control. Therefore, the benefit of the notification could not be extended to the goods in dispute.

3. Applicability of the Date of Duty Payment for Determining the Rate of Duty:
The appellants argued that the rate of duty should be determined based on the date of duty payment (3-10-1980) rather than the date of the Bill of Entry (19-1-1979). The Tribunal rejected this argument, citing the Bombay High Court's judgment in Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that the relevant date for duty is the date when the Bill of Entry is presented. The Tribunal also referenced the Tribunal's decision in The Tuticorin Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, which supports this view.

4. Eligibility for Special Discount in Valuation:
The appellants sought a special discount of 10% on the assessable value, claiming it was given due to the exhibition purposes. The Tribunal rejected this claim, stating that the goods were invoiced at full value at the time of the original import, and a special discount cannot be deducted from the assessable value under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal cited judgments in Automotive Enterprises v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, and Union of India v. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., which support this position.

5. Levy of Countervailing Duty (C.V. Duty):
The appellants argued that no C.V. Duty was leviable if the date of the Bill of Entry (19-1-1979) is considered, as per Notification No. 364/76. However, the Tribunal did not entertain this argument, as the additional ground of appeal regarding C.V. Duty was rejected earlier. The Tribunal emphasized that new pleas at the appellate stage are not permissible if they were not raised in the initial proceedings, as supported by the judgment in Unique Beautycare Product Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal, upholding the view that the goods did not qualify for the concessional rate under Notification No. 40/78, the relevant date for duty determination is the date of the Bill of Entry, and the special discount cannot be deducted from the assessable value. The additional ground regarding C.V. Duty was not considered.