1993 (7) TMI 202 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appellants importing Rosin from Nepal without paying additional duty of customs
- Contesting show cause notices and subsequent confirmation of demands by Assistant Collector
- Appeal before Collector (Appeals) rejecting the claims of the appellants
- Question of whether additional duty demanded is exempted under Notification No. 203/90
- Interpretation of various judgments regarding exemption from customs duty

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves four appeals against a common impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Allahabad. The appellants imported Rosin from Nepal without paying additional duty of customs as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Show cause notices were issued, demands were confirmed by the Assistant Collector, and appeals were filed before the Collector (Appeals), who rejected them, leading to the present appeals.

2. The appellants argued that they imported Rosin under Chapter 38 without paying any customs duty, relying on Notification No. 203/90 for exemption. They cited judgments like Arohan Mukhyalaya v. Collector of Customs and M.R.F. Limited v. U.O.I. to support their claim that the additional duty demanded is part of customs duty and exempted under the notification.

3. The Respondent contended that exemptions are limited to duties under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, and additional/customs duty is separate. Citing cases like Eastern Spinning Mills & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, the Respondent argued that additional duty is leviable even if basic customs duty is exempted.

4. The Tribunal considered the submissions and case law cited. It noted that exemptions under notifications are specific and do not automatically extend to all types of customs duty. Referring to various judgments, including Union of India v. Modi Rubber Limited and Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works v. Union of India, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision to reject the claims of the appellants.

5. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the argument that since the goods were cleared earlier, no additional duty could be demanded. Citing the Madras High Court case of Cannon Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Tribunal clarified that once there is clearance under relevant sections of the Act, the assessment becomes final unless set aside, allowing the demand for additional duty.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) and rejected all the appeals, emphasizing the specific nature of exemptions under notifications and the distinctiveness of various types of customs duties.