1986 (1) TMI 103 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Impugning notices for recovery of differential duty on baby blankets, interpretation of notification on tariff values, challenge against lack of notice under Rule 10, discrimination in duty charge compared to another concern.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged notices seeking recovery of duty on baby blankets, cleared at Rs. 25/- per kg tariff value, under notification No. 4/77-G.E. The authority, however, concluded that the goods were woollen fabrics, not baby blankets, and levied duty at Rs. 51/- per kg. The petitioner argued lack of prior notice under Rule 10 and discrimination compared to another concern. The respondent contended that Rule 10 did not apply, as no duty revision occurred, and discrimination claim was baseless due to differing facts in each case.

The court analyzed Rule 10, noting it applies when duty is short-levied due to misdescription by the owner. As authorities initially categorized petitioner's goods as woollen fabrics, not baby blankets, no duty revision was made. The court rejected the petitioner's argument of mis-description leading to short-levied duty, as authorities correctly assessed the goods. Since no duty revision occurred, no notice under Rule 10 was required, and the petitioner's claim lacked merit.

Regarding discrimination, the court highlighted the distinct classification of goods in the petitioner's case and the other concern. The Appellate Collector's decision in the other case was based on different facts, classifying the goods as shoddy baby blankets, unlike the petitioner's woollen fabrics. As the fundamental facts differed between the cases, the discrimination claim was unfounded.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the duty assessment on woollen fabrics and rejecting claims of lack of notice under Rule 10 and discrimination. Costs of Rs. 500 were awarded against the petitioner.