1980 (2) TMI 80 - HC - Central Excise

Acrylic sheets manufactured from Methyl Methacrylate Monomer - Liability to countervailing duty - Refunds - Writ of mandamus - Scope

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 38/73 exempting acrylic sheets from excise duty, Countervailing duty on imported acrylic sheets, Review petition filed by the petitioner challenging the countervailing duty, Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs to deal with review applications, Application of Sec. 2A(1) of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 in the case.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the petitioner's import of Acrylic plastic sheets subject to excise duties and countervailing duties. The petitioner imported these sheets made from Methyl Methacrylate Monomer and paid the leviable duties. The Central Government exempted acrylic sheets manufactured in India from excise duty under Notification No. 38/73, provided they meet specific conditions. The petitioner filed a review application to challenge the countervailing duty imposed on the imported sheets, citing the exemption notification. The Collector of Customs dismissed the review petition, stating that the exemption was conditional and did not apply in all circumstances, leading to the countervailing duty being upheld.

The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Collector's order and refund the countervailing duty. The judgment delves into the legal framework of Sec. 2A(1) of the Indian Tariff Act, which imposes additional duty equivalent to the excise duty on a like article if produced in India. The court emphasized that if no excise duty was payable on a similar article manufactured in India, no countervailing duty would be levied on imports. The court scrutinized the Collector's reasoning, highlighting the misconception in linking excise duty liability on domestically manufactured acrylic sheets to the countervailing duty on imported sheets.

The court found that the Collector's approach was flawed as it did not consider the specific material used in manufacturing the imported acrylic sheets. Despite the petitioner providing certificates and evidence that the sheets were made from Methyl Methacrylate Monomer, the Collector failed to dispute this or establish that the sheets were not produced as claimed. The court concluded that since the imported sheets met the conditions of the exemption notification, no countervailing duty was payable. Consequently, the court set aside the Collector's order and the countervailing duty levy, allowing the writ petition and implying a refund of the duty by the Department. The judgment clarifies the correct application of the law regarding countervailing duties on imported goods and upholds the exemption granted under the relevant notification.