9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia at the time when they were totally exempt from customs duty (and not additional duty) became chargeable to customs duty if at the time of their removal the exemption from customs duty is withdrawn? (ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring the principle of promissory estoppel qua Notification dated 15.3.1979 in the instant case and particularly with reference to facts and circumstances prevailing? (iii) Whether the goods in respect of which bills of entry were presented after the issue of the Notification 205-CUS/80 dated 16.10.1980 by which total exemption from Customs duty granted under Notification 66-CUS dated 15.3.1979 as amended and which was to remain in force till 31.3.1981, was withdrawn and period curtailed to 16.10.198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered this plea of the learned advocate for the applicant. The question of leviability to basic duty of Customs is an uncalled for hair splitting by the learned advocate because there is no such concept as basic duty of customs or other than basic duty of Customs. All duties of Customs imposed under the Customs Tariff Act or under any other law for the time being in force have been made leviable by Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. All such duties are essentially duties of Customs and one cannot make a distinction between basic duty of Customs or non-basic duty of Customs, as has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works [1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (SC)] that additional duty of Customs unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of para 31 from the said report is reproduced below :- Shri Dohlakia sought to draw a distinction between a nil duty and non-leviability of duty. This could perhaps be argued as a proposition in abstract logic, but again having regard to the scheme of the provisions relating to the Tribunal, it would lead to illogical legal position, a case where one had to choose between a 10% rate of duty under the tariff and a nil rate of duty under an exemption notification would attract the provisions relating to a Special Bench and an appeal direct to the Supreme Court, while a case where one had to choose between a 10% rate of duty and non-leviability of duty would not. We do not think that we would be justified in adopting such an anomalous i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
