1986 (7) TMI 102 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of countervailing duty recovered by the respondents.
2. Applicability of exemption notifications under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act.
3. Levying of duty of excise in excess of specified rates.
4. Relief and refund of excess excise duty collected.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners contended that the countervailing duty recovered by the respondents was invalid due to an exemption notification issued under the Customs Act. The notification exempted specific articles from paying duty in excess of the prescribed rate. However, the court held that the exemption did not extend to additional duty or countervailing duty, as clarified in the notification itself. Thus, the petitioners' argument on this issue was rejected.

2. The petitioners argued that certain notifications under the Central Excise Act limited the respondents from levying excise duty above specified rates. Referring to these notifications, the court acknowledged that they applied to the import of High Density Polythelene Moulding Powder (HDPE) based on previous judgments. Consequently, the court declared that the respondents should not have collected excise duty exceeding the specified rates and ordered a refund of the excess amount collected during a specific period.

3. In light of the above findings, the court ruled partially in favor of the petitioners, directing the respondents to calculate and refund the excess excise duty collected on the import of HDPE within a specified timeframe. The court also mentioned that no costs were to be awarded in this case and further noted the discharge of the bank guarantee provided by the petitioners.

This judgment clarifies the application of exemption notifications under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act concerning the levy of excise duty on imported goods, particularly HDPE, providing relief to the petitioners by ordering a refund of excess excise duty collected by the respondents.