2003 (3) TMI 133 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Whether additional duty of customs is leviable on acrylic sheets imported by the Petitioners under Notification No. 53/88-C.E., dated 1st March, 1988.

Analysis:
The petitions raised the issue of the liability of additional duty on imported acrylic sheets under Notification No. 53/88-C.E., dated 1st March, 1988. The Petitioners argued that since acrylic sheets were manufactured from plastic scraps, which were wholly exempt from excise duty under the Notification, no additional duty should be levied. They relied on various court decisions to support their contention that fulfilling the basic requirement of the Notification, i.e., manufacturing acrylic sheets from plastic scrap, should suffice for claiming exemption from additional duty.

Customs Authorities' Contention:
On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the exemption under the Notification required the payment of excise duty or additional duty on the plastic scrap used in manufacturing acrylic sheets. Since no such duty was paid on the plastic scrap in this case, the Petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the Notification. They relied on a court decision that stated if the conditions specified in a Notification were not met, the importer could not claim the benefit of that Notification.

Court's Decision:
After hearing both parties, the Court concluded that the issue was covered by a previous judgment, which stated that the payment of excise duty or additional duty on inputs, in this case, plastic scraps, was a condition precedent for availing the benefit of the Notification. Since the conditions were not fulfilled in this case, the Petitioners could not claim exemption from additional duty. The Court distinguished other court decisions cited by the Petitioners, stating they were not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the Petitioners were directed to pay the quantified additional duty within a specified timeframe with interest.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the petitions were disposed of with the direction for the Petitioners to pay the determined additional duty within the stipulated period. No costs were awarded in the case.