9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed against the said order of the Assistant Collector, but the same was also rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The present appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals). 2. Collector (Appeals) has held that the decision of the Assistant Collector was wrong as Singapore was included in the Notification No. 352-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. He, however, rejected the appeal of the appellants on the ground that coconut oil is not included in the Notification No. 342/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. 3. We have heard Shri S.D. Nankani, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Shishir Kumar, learned S.D.R. for the respondent. Shri Nankani has argued that the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) have wrongly applied Notification No. 342/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. The said notification was not at all relevant in this case. In the Bill of Entry, the appellants claimed preferential rate of duty under Notification No. 352/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 as the country of origin of the goods was Singapore. Singapore is included at Sl. No. 19 of the said Notification. They also claimed refund of additional duty. The contention of the learned Advocate is that the goods impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly and it cannot be the basis for claiming exemption under the Customs Act, the learned Advocate has stated that Karnataka High Court did not appear to have considered the provision of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was pointed out to the learned Advocate that the High Court had considered the provision of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. 4. Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 reads as follows :- 3. Levy of Additional Duty equal to excise duty - (1) An article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to a duty (hereafter in this section referred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty to which the imported article shall be so liable shall be calculated at that percentage of the value of the imported article. Explanation. - In this section, the expression the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India" means the excise duty for the time being in force which would be leviable on a like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o drawbacks refund and exemption from duties, shall so far as may be, apply to duty chargeable under this Section as they apply in relation to the duties leviable under that Act." 5. In the case of B.S. Kamath and Company (supra), Hon ble Karnataka High Court considered the provision of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Century Enka Limited. In paragraph 26 of the judgment of Karnataka High Court, their Lordships reproduced paragraph 7 of the judgment of Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Century Enka s case. For facility of reference we reproduce below the said paragraph 7 of the judgment :- 7. Shri Govilkar then argued that Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act makes reference to the additional duty and it is something different from the countervailing duty. In our judgment, the submissions only deserve to be stated to be rejected. The learned Councel then argued that the exemption notification on which reliance is placed by the petitioners was issued under the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and that cannot be used for claiming the advantage under the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act. The submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2], and therefore they could not follow the judgment of Bombay High Court. Their Lordships also observed that in M/s. Hegde Golay Limited v. The Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Writ Petition No. 6706 of 1979 decided on 2-1-1986) the same view was held. In paragraph 27 Their Lordships in Karnataka High Court, therefore, held that With great respect to the learned Judges that decided Century Enka s case, we are of the considered opinion that the same runs counter to the provisions of the Customs and Tariff Acts and the legal principles underlying the levy of duties or taxes on imports and excise duty on manufactured goods in the country. For these and other reasons stated by us earlier, with great respect to Their Lordship of the Bombay High Court that decided Century Enka s case, we regret our inability to subscribe to their views. 6. A similar question came up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Gupta Trading Company v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1987(27) E.L.T. 510]. In that case, this Tribunal, followed the judgment of Karnataka High Court (supra) and also considered the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Khandelwal M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td., Bombay, reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 119, and in Moti Ram Tola Ram v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987(29) E.L.T. 278 (Tribunal) = 1987 (Vol. II-Part I) E.C.C-T-8, this Tribunal held that exemption from additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 cannot be claimed on the basis of exemption Notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to take a view different from that taken by this Tribunal in the cases cited (supra). Accordingly, we hold that Central Excise Notification No. 33/63-CE, dated 1-3-1963 could not exempt the imported goods from the levy of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 9. Even otherwise, imported crude coconut oil in question is not covered by the Notification No. 33/63-CE. This notification exempted vegetable Non-essential Oils other than processed vegetable non-essential oils. Explanation to the Notification says that the processes referred to in this Notification are (i) Treatment with alkali or acid, (ii) Bleaching, and (iii) Deodorization. Learned Advocate has argued that the imported go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
