9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - Under a Bill of Entry Cash No. 3068, dated 29-3-1979 the appellants imported goods described as Differential Pressure Indicator . The goods were assessed to duty under heading 90.24(1 ),CTA at 40% plus 5% (AD plus CVD) at the rate of 8%. After clearing the goods the appellants applied for refund of part of the duty (Auxiliary duty) paid by them on the ground that the imported goods were e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der was as follows: 4. The statutory rate of duty on Differential Pressure Indicator falling under Tariff Heading 90.24(1) is 40% ad valorem. The importers have claimed- that these Differential Pressure Indicators are used for the assembly of Compressors. These compressors appear to attract the same statutory rate of duty (40% ad valorem) under Tariff Heading 84.11(1). That is to say, that, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of Notification 53/79. 4. The matter on statutory transfer to the Tribunal is now an appeal before us. 5. We heard Shri J. Gopinath, the learned S.D.R. Shri Gopinath reiterated the grounds contained in the review notice and submitted that the rates of duty under headings 90.24(1) and 84.11(1) were the same. As a result of applying notification No. 35/79 the goods were reassessed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit of Notification 35/79 inasmuch as the imported goods would get the benefit of exemption from auxiliary duty under Notification 53/79-Cus. In support of his arguments Shri Subramanian cited an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Embarkation Headquarters v. Collector of Customs, Madras reported in 1983 E.C.R. 665D. 7. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the rate of duty payable by them on merits was the same as the rate of duty payable under notification does not take away the respondent s right to claim benefit of the notification especially when the concurrent notification would lead to a further benefit under another notification No. 53/79-Cus. It has not been shown to us that the Appellate Collector erred in extending the benefit of Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
