9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge of additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act on imported lead scrap. 2. Interpretation of exemption notification under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules regarding waste and scrap. Analysis: 1. The petitioners contested the levy of countervailing duty on the imported lead scrap, arguing that it was not manufactured in India. However, this argument was dismissed based on a Supreme Court judgment (Khandelwal Metal & Engg. Works v. Union of India) which clarified that the origin of the lead scrap is irrelevant for duty imposition purposes. Therefore, the contention that duty should not have been charged due to non-Indian manufacture was deemed unsustainable. 2. The petitioners also relied on an exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, which exempted certain waste and scrap from duty subject to specific conditions. The petitioners claimed that their imported battery scrap could be considered as arising from a product falling under a different item number than those specified in the exemption notification. However, a previous judgment by Bharucha, J., ruled against a similar argument, stating that the lead scrap did not qualify for exemption as it did not meet the conditions outlined in the notification. The judge declined to refer the matter to a Division Bench, emphasizing judicial discipline and the need for a clear distinction to differ from another judge's decision. In conclusion, the court found no grounds to grant relief to the petitioners and discharged the rule. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal interpretations and precedents, even when differing opinions exist, to maintain judicial discipline.
|
