9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Notification No. 55/75-C.E. of additional duty in respect of imported Pyridine Pure 2 degrees was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay by his order dated 26-3-1983 on The ground that the importers have not mentioned the end product nor shown use of the product as drug-intermediate. The order was upheld in appeal by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay by his order dated 26.8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants have in their written submissions relied on a Single Judge decision of Bombay High Court in Rakesh Enterprises Another v. Union of India Another 1986 (25) E.L.T. 906 Bombay for the argument that if the goods are drug and drug intermediate, it is not necessary to establish for the purposes of exemption under notification that they are actually so used. The High Court held that it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 2 clause (v) which according to the well-recognised canons of construction would be projected in Rule 8(1) be read as granting exemption only in respect of duty of excise payable under the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. 5. In B.S. Kamath Others v. Union of India Others 1986 (24) E.L.T. 456 (Karnataka), a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held - The chargeability, assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants cannot claim refund of the Additional duty which is Customs duty based on a Notification issued under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, when the notification has no reference to customs duty. The rejection of the appellants claim for refund must be, therefore, upheld though for reasons different from those found by the lower authorities. The appeal fails and is dismissed. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
