9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied denying liability and claiming that the exported dry tapioca chips did not conform to the Indian Standards specifications for live stock feeding and that the export was for purposes of use of the goods for industrial purposes only, as may be seen by the certificate of the consignee, and hence no duty was payable. Under order dated 5-5-1981 the Assistant Collector rejected the said contention and confirmed the demand. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras under his order dated 28-1-1982/10-2-1982. The Appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Govt. against the same. The same, on transfer, is the present deemed appeal before us. 2. We have heard Shri G. Prakash, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in order to be dutiable under that item it has to be considered whether the particular goods conformed to the specifications or requirements generally recognized for tapioca for use as animal feed; (b) The Custom House test reports clearly showed that the goods did not conform to the Indian Standard specifications for tapioca for use as animal feed; (c) The fact that there are alternative uses for tapioca chips has been established by reference to authorities; (d) It has been submitted that there are no Indian Standard Specifications for tapioca to be used for industrial purposes, and accordingly there is nothing to show that the tapioca chips were not suitable for use for industrial purposes; and (e) There is evidence that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ratio of the case stated supra the goods exported by the appellants were not liable to duty. 7. In the order in appeal reference is made to the decision of the Govt. of India in the case of export of tapioca by M/s. Bakul Cashew Co. whereunder the Govt. of India had held that tapioca chips are covered by the description animal feed under Item 21 of the second schedule of the Customs Tariff Act and would therefore be liable for duty on export. But we may see that this decision of the Govt. of India has been set aside by the Madras High Court as reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 379. Therefore no conclusion against the appellants can be drawn on the basis of the said decision of the Govt. of India. 8. In view of what has been stated abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
