1998 (1) TMI 79 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of customs duty rates for imported goods under Project Import (Regulations), 1986.
2. Claim for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 40/78-Cus. (as amended).
3. Validity of Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.
4. Writ petition for compliance with Tribunal's order.
5. Applicability of Madras High Court decision in a similar case.
6. Interpretation of Notification No. 40/78-Cus. (as amended) in light of Supreme Court judgment.
7. Dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 526 of 1993 by the Supreme Court.
8. Dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1994 by the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The case involved the interpretation of customs duty rates for imported goods under Project Import (Regulations), 1986, specifically focusing on an Extrusion Press imported by the assessee. The assessee claimed a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 40/78-Cus. (as amended) for the press falling under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff. The Tribunal, relying on a previous judgment, decided in favor of the assessee, allowing the benefit of the lower rate of duty. The Revenue challenged this decision by filing Civil Appeal No. 526 of 1993. The Supreme Court analyzed the Tribunal's decision and relevant notifications. It noted that the exemption granted under the notification dated April 19, 1985, should not affect other exemptions granted under different notifications, as established in previous judgments like Abrol Watches Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 526 of 1993, upholding the assessee's right to claim the lower rate of customs duty.

The assessee sought finalization of assessment and refund of excise duty based on the Tribunal's decision. A writ petition was filed in the Bombay High Court for direction to comply with the Tribunal's order, which was dismissed due to pending appeals. The assessee then filed Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1994 against the High Court's decision. However, with the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 526 of 1993 by the Supreme Court, the senior counsel for the assessee acknowledged that Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1994 was no longer relevant, leading to its dismissal as well. The Supreme Court made no order as to costs for both appeals, thereby concluding the legal proceedings in the matter.