9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay. The importer had simultaneously filed a stay petition which was accepted by the Tribunal vide its Order No. B-23/83 dated 14th of February, 1983. The Tribunal, granting stay for a period of three months or till the final disposal of the appeal filed, directed early hearing and that is how the matter has come before us out of turn. 2. The adjudication by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), Bombay dated 16th of December 1981 was a common order in respect of the importer, M/s. Chhaganlal & Sons, Bombay, M/S. Raj Industries, Bombay as also M/s. Madanlal & Co., again of Bombay. The Collector's order as mentioned in the above para is also a common order, as given in the annexure, which we like to notice as follows, to compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the importer only. 5. The importers in or about the year 1979 imported five consignments of P.O. leather cloth. We are not giving the precise dates of import of five consignments because the facts as stated by the Assistant Collector's order are not disputed either in the instant case or in the three other cases. In is not the Revenue's contention that the benefits of the Notification No. 29/79 supra would not be available because of different dates of imports. On the contrary, it is an accepted position that the dispute arising in relation to the four cases would be covered by the notification if it is held to be applicable. 6. The imported goods were assessed to duty at 100% + 20% + CVD. Though the importers paid the duty t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Order, dated l7th of January, 1983 as mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal. Against the above stated rejection order, the importers are before us as mentioned in the beginning of this judgment order. 10. At the time of hearing, Shri S.D. Nankani, Advocate, appearing before us in all the four appeals submitted that the dispute arising in the four appeals (importers and three others) already stand resolved in favour of the importers and against the Revenue by virtue of two orders of the Tribunal, one dated 4th of January, 1983 (Order No. 16/83) in Appeal No. 22 of 81-D in the case of M/s. Allibhoy Mohamed v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1983 (12) E.L.T. 385 (CEGAT) and the other of 9th February 1983 (Order No. C-30/1983-in Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/1983 "This is a revision application to the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 (as then applicable) which, in accordance with Section 131B(2) ibid is to be proceeded with as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. After notice had been duly issued, the matter was taken up for hearing. 2. The question involved in this appeal is whether Polyester Plaster Polyester Supported) are covered by Entry No. 12-"Buckles and Embellishments for footwear" occurring in Notification No. 29/79, dated 10-2-1979 so as to make the goods imported by the appellants eligible for the concessional rate of duty provided for in the said Notification. 3. Shri Krishnamurthy stated that the goods in question were Poly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate the appellants' goods figure at Sl. No. 8 in list of items considered as embellishments for leather footwear. (iii) Only recently, the Tribunal sitting in Special Bench 'D' had decided an identical matter vide Order No. D-16/83, dated 4-1-1983. There also, the issue involved was the same except that in those proceedings the goods were stamping foil whereas the appellants had imported polyester plastic (polyester supported). Since the appellants' case was on all fours with the matter decided in the above order, Shri Krishnamurthy pleaded that the ratio of that order should be made applicable to his appellants' case also. 4. Shri Sundara Rajan, JDR, raised the following points on behalf of the respondent Collector : (i) Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted inter alia by the certificate, dated 28-1-1983 issued by the Export Promotion Council referred to earlier in this order. We have accepted the said certificate as an additional piece of evidence to be placed on record. We have also gone through the Order No. D-16/83, dated 4-1-1983 passed by the Special Bench 'D' of "the Tribunal. We find that the issue raised in that appeal is practically on all fours with the matter under consideration in the present appeal as well as. We are in agreement with the reasoning adopted in the above mentioned order and see full justification to follow the ratio of the same. The objection raised by the representative of the Respondent has been adequately covered" in the order passed by the Special Bench 'D' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
