1993 (9) TMI 125 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of customs duty and countervailing duty on imported goods.
2. Application of Exemption Notification No. 69 dated June 15, 1968.
3. Validity of countervailing duty levy under Entry/Item 15A.
4. Consideration of Public Notice No. 85 dated March 20, 1972 in customs proceedings.
5. Discretion of authorities in permitting alternate pleas during customs proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Gramophone records, imported Poly Vinyl Chloride (P.V.C.) L.P. Biscuit material from Yugoslavia, treated as modified resins by customs authorities. Customs duty at 100% and countervailing duty of Rs. 94,274.35 were levied under relevant tariff entries. The appellant contended the imported material was pure resins, not modified, and sought a 50% duty rebate under Exemption Notification No. 69 dated June 15, 1968.

2. Exemption Notification No. 69 dated June 15, 1968, granted a 50% duty exemption on resins imported from U.A.R. or Yugoslavia. The dispute arose from the classification of the imported material as modified resins under Item 82(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff. The Revenue's stance was that the material was indeed modified resins, a view upheld in revision.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that if the imported material was not resins but modified resins, countervailing duty levy under Entry/Item 15A was impermissible. Reference was made to Public Notice No. 85 dated March 20, 1972, stating that additional duty is not applicable to modified resins falling outside the specified category under Item 15A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff.

4. The appellant contended that the Government erred in denying the benefit of Public Notice No. 85 and levying both customs duty and countervailing duty. However, the appellate authority and the Government were found to have not acted arbitrarily in rejecting the appellant's plea based on a notice issued after the import period. The appellant's failure to raise the alternate plea earlier was considered, and the appeal was dismissed with no costs.

5. The judgment clarified that the appellant could raise the alternate plea before appropriate authorities if advised to do so. Additionally, it was noted that the appellant had also filed a writ petition (No. 584 of 1974) on the same subject matter, with further proceedings scheduled for a later date.