9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Cadbury Fry (India) Limited v. Union of India Ors. (Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 1404 of 1975) had been rejected by the Assistant Collector and the appeals therefrom have been rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). It is against the said orders that these two Revision Petitions have been preferred to the Govt. of India and, under Section 35-P of the Central Excises Salt Act, the said Revision Petitions have been transferred to this Tribunal for disposal as appeals. 2. Shri V. Subramaniam, Proprietor of the appellant, appeared on behalf of the appellant and the Respondent was represented by Shri Vineet Ohri, SDR. Both appeals were heard together since the same question ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said commodity. His contention was that so far as levy of Central Excise Duty is concerned, the description of the commodity in the course of trade within the country may be looked into but so far as Countervailing Duty payable under the Customs Act is concerned, it is the description of the commodity as accepted in the course of international trade that will have to be looked into and the very description of the commodity as Cocoa Powder in invoices, bill of entry etc. would, suffice to establish that even unblended and unflavoured Cocoa Powder is also called Cocoa Powder only in the course of the international trade and, therefore, Countervailing Duty has been rightly levied and collected. 3. We have carefully considered the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e so liable shall be calculated at that percentage of the value of the imported article. Therefore, the Countervailing Duty shall be equal to the Excise Duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. So far as unblended and unflavoured Cocoa Powder is concerned, it has been already seen that no Excise Duty is leviable thereon, as held by the Bombay High Court. In that event, the Countervailing Duty, which is to be equal to the Excise Duty, would also be necessarily nil. 5. But Shri Ohri contends that this would not be so and cites the decision of this Tribunal in Chokshi Tube Limited Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1983 (14) E.L.T. 2362]. The dispute in the said case was with refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
