9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-Original S47/60/90 dated 27-9-1990 had rejected the appellant s plea stating that since the goods were imported in pursuance of their contract registered with Custom House under Project Import Regulations these were eligible to exemption only under Notification 132/85 and not under 288/88. 3. On an appeal being filed by the appellant against the order which was decided by me vide Order M. Cus. 1795 to 1798/90 dated 27-9-1990 I had set aside the said order of the lower authority holding that the benefit of Notification 288/88 could not be denied to the appellant even if the imports were under Project Import Regulation for the reasons stated in the said appellate order. Having categorically held as above the lower authority was directed to examine whether the goods in question answered the description of goods specified under Notification No. 288/88 and pass an appropriate order. The lower authority instead of examining the issue in the light of my specific direction chose to virtually sit in judgment over the Appellate Order and once again hold that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 288/88 on the ground that since the imports were under Project Imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is more beneficial compared to concession under Notification 132/85, Under Notification 288/88 Jigs, fixtures, dies and patterns, moulds, press tools, parts of press tools falling within the First Schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 that are imported into India for the manufacture of auto- components are chargeable to customs duty at the rate of 35% ad valorem. It also wholly exempts additional duty subject to certain conditions specified in the said Notification. However, in terms of Notification No. 182/90 goods covered under exemption Notification No. 288/88 are subject to auxiliary duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem. The appellant had sought assessment for the moulds and dies imported by them under Notification 288/88 and had also submitted requisite certificate as required under the said Notification. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector vide his earlier Order dated 27-8-1990 which in appeal was set aside vide Appellate Order dated 27-9-1990. The lower authority ignoring the direction of Collector (Appeals) passed the impugned Order dated 23-11-1990 reiterating the same grounds taken up in his earlier order dated 27-9-1990 which had been set aside in appeal. 6A. Eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mported goods and applicability of an exemption Notification to such goods are two different aspects of assessment. While there is no dispute that goods are classifiable only under Heading 9801 the lower authority has once again grossly erred in holding that import being under Project Import the benefit of 132/85 alone was applicable. For the purpose of determining effective rate of duty in respect of items on which there is no dispute about its classification between revenue and the importer, an importer would be at liberty to seek the benefit of any Notification so long he satisfies the conditions of such notification in all its aspects. It is probably for this reason that Notification No. 132/85 itself makes a provision to clarify that the said Notification shall not affect the exemption granted under any other Notification for goods classifiable under 9801. At this stage it would be necessary to also go through the scheme of the Notification i.e. 288/88. As briefly discussed earlier this notification exempts jigs, fixtures, dies and patterns, moulds (including moulds for castings), press tools and parts of press tools failing within the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund claim in terms of Notification 40/78 as amended by Notification 109/78 exempting duty in excess of 25% ad valorem. Their claim had been rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that assessment was done under Project Import Regulation and importer having availed of such concessional assessment under the said regulations were not eligible to avail of assessment under any other concessional notification. On appeal, however, the Appellate Collector did not agree with the Assistant Collector s view observing that availing of Project Import concessional assessment was not a bar on the item being assessed on merits read with any other concessional notification. The appellate order subsequently had been taken up for review by the Central Government which was transferred to the CEGAT under Section 131(b) of the Customs Act which disposed of the same vide Order CD/SB(T) A No. 1571/81-B. The CEGAT concurring with the arguments put forth on behalf of BHEL held that there was no bar to availing of more than one benefit unless it is barred categorically. The appellate order was accordingly upheld and the show cause notice issued by the Government set aside. 11. Subsequently again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nery under Project Import Regulations which during the relevant time was classifiable under Heading 84.66. The Bench held that one of the requirements for availing total exemption under Notification 62/83-Cus. was not only that the goods should be paper making machinery but it should also fall under Heading 84.31. Since the goods in question had been admittedly classified under Heading 84.66, the Court observed that the Respondent Importer was not eligible to total exemption of auxiliary duty envisaged under Notification 62/83-Cus., since conditions relating to its Notification was clearly not satisfied. However, the court s observations in sub-para 16 of the said judgment would be of relevance to the issue before me; and the same is reproduced below: if the exemption notification had merely referred to the description of the goods as paper making machinery and parts thereof without referring to any heading in the First Schedule, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the Respondent may have some force . (emphasis applied) 13. In the light of the said observations of the Madras High Court, applicability of Notification 288/88 in the present case to imports under Proje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant. 15. I therefore once again direct that the lower authority should examine the case in the manner indicated above and grant the benefit of Notification 288/88 subject to the importer satisfying the conditions of the said notification. Consequently the impugned order which is not only illegal and improper but is also without jurisdiction is quashed and appeal in principle allowed. 16. However, before I part with this order, I feel constrained to place on record my disapproval of the Lower Authority s action in virtually pronouncing his judgment over the decision given by the superior authority and for acting contrary to specific direction contained in such appellate decision which was binding on them under the law. In doing so he has, disregarding judicial propriety and discipline, arrogated to himself the powers that vest in CEGAT and competent courts alone thus undermining the appellate institution created under the statute. It is sincerely hoped that such a conduct would not be cited as a precedence and in future subordinate authorities under the Act would not feel unrestrained in flouting the quasi-judicial order of superior Appellate Authority in a manner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
