9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Entitlement to claim exemption from payment of additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioners, a company manufacturing phthalic anhydride, imported raw material called "orthorxylene" in addition to its quota allotted by Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited. The Customs authorities levied additional duty on the imported raw material, which was challenged in the writ petition. 2. Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 imposes additional duty on imported articles equal to the excise duty leviable on a like article if produced in India. The petitioners argued that since the producer of the raw material in India was exempt from excise duty, no additional duty should be levied on their imported raw material. 3. The petitioners relied on decisions from the High Courts of Madras and Bombay, which held that if a like article manufactured in India is exempt from excise duty, no additional duty can be levied on the imported article. The courts emphasized that the liability to pay countervailing duty depends on the liability to pay excise duty. 4. However, the Supreme Court in a previous case clarified that Section 3(1) of the Act mandates additional duty equal to the excise duty leviable on a like article produced in India, regardless of whether such goods are manufactured in the country or duty is paid on them. The exemption granted to a producer under Central Excise Rules cannot be extended to other users who import the raw material. 5. The Court concluded that the exemption given to the local producer cannot be automatically extended to the importer of the raw material. The benefit of exemption aims to encourage local production of scarce commodities, and it does not apply to importers. The petitioners could not claim the exemption meant for producers, and the Customs authorities' action in levying additional duty was upheld. 6. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
