1994 (2) TMI 61 - SC - Customs

Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 281-Cus/76 granting some exemption from payment of customs duty in respect of rod bushes and camshaft bushes/ Held that - It may be that the Collector should have finally disposed of this order. But he has not. In view of this, it may as well be that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal because of what has been held in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA as there is yet no assessment for the period in question. So, we refrain.The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to customs duty exemption under various notifications.
2. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 69-Cus/87.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of internal combustion piston engine parts, was initially denied exemption under Notification No. 281-Cus/76. However, in a previous judgment, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to the exemption.
2. Subsequently, Notification No. 153-Cus/86 and Notification No. 208-Cus. were issued, amending the earlier notification. The appellant was initially denied the benefit under these notifications but was later granted the exemption.
3. A new Notification, No. 69-Cus/87, was issued, and the appellant claimed exemption under this notification, which was not granted. The Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) also did not grant the exemption, leading to the filing of the current appeal under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. The Tribunal did not pass an order on the exemption claim as the Collector had not taken a final decision, and no assessment order refusing the exemption had been issued, requiring the appellant to follow the hierarchy for resolution.
5. The appellant argued that the Collector virtually refused the exemption, and the Court should decide the matter instead of requiring the appellant to approach the Collector, as it would serve no purpose due to the Collector's stance.
6. The Collector's stand was that the benefit under Notification No. 69-Cus/87 did not directly flow from the Supreme Court's earlier decision. The appellant contended that the Court's previous judgment indicated that the benefit under the new notification should be granted.
7. The Court refrained from expressing a view on the appellant's contention due to the absence of an assessment order denying the exemption. The Court noted that the previous judgment alone did not automatically entitle the appellant to the exemption under the new notification.
8. The appellant pressed for a decision on the exemption point, citing an earlier order requiring the Collector to dispose of the claim, which had not been done. The Court considered the jurisdictional issue and dismissed the appeal, citing a lack of assessment for the period in question.
9. The Court allowed the appellant to prefer appeals if there had been any provisional assessment denying the exemption, within a specified period, without raising the question of limitation. No costs were awarded in the case.