9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Stainless Steel Circles under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. Entitlement to refund of excise duty paid at a higher rate. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Stainless Steel Circles under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975: The primary issue revolved around the classification of Stainless Steel Circles under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioners-appellants, a Small Scale Unit manufacturing stainless steel utensils, imported H.T. Stainless Steel Circles for their production. Initially, the Customs Officer assessed the duty under Item 73.15(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which levied a duty of 220% on the CIF value. However, the appellants contended that the correct classification should be under Item 73.15(1), attracting a lower duty rate of 40%. The appellants argued that commercially, stainless steel sheets and circles are treated differently. They highlighted that circles were introduced by a specific amendment later, indicating legislative intent to distinguish between sheets and circles. They also referenced various notifications that made a clear distinction between these forms, emphasizing that circles should not be included within the scope of Item 73.15(2). The respondents, represented by the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, argued that the Delhi High Court in Super Traders and Another v. Union of India had decided a similar issue, holding that circles could be included under sheets as per Heading 73.15(2). They maintained that the later amendment was to make the classification specific and did not imply any distinction in the law prior to the amendment. The court examined the relevant entries in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and noted a clear dichotomy between specified and non-specified items under Heading 73.15. The genus was 'Alloy steel and high carbon steel,' with various forms listed under Clause (2) of 73.15. The court concluded that commercially, stainless steel sheets are different from circles, as evidenced by the Indian Standard Specification and various notifications. The court also referenced the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill, 1982, which specifically included circles, indicating that circles were not initially included under Heading 73.15(2). This legislative intent was further supported by the statement of objects and reasons for the amendment, which aimed to prevent the manipulation of descriptions to claim lower duty rates. 2. Entitlement to Refund of Excise Duty Paid at a Higher Rate: The appellants claimed a refund of Rs. 1,91,205.80, arguing that the duty was erroneously assessed at 220% instead of 40%. They filed a claim for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act within the stipulated time. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim, and the Appellate Collector of Customs confirmed this order. The court held that since circles were not included under Heading 73.15(2) prior to the amendment, they should be classified under Heading 73.15(1) as 'not elsewhere specified,' attracting a duty rate of 40%. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to a refund of the excess duty paid. Judgment: The court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeals. A mandamus was issued directing the refund of the excess duty paid by the appellants within eight weeks. There was no order as to costs.
|
