9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 588, dated 20-01-1983. The goods were assessed to duty under Item 73.16 (1) CTA and c.v. duty at the rate of Rs. 330/- per metric ton. The importers filed a claim for refund of duty on the ground that additional duty is leviable only on manufactured goods and the auxiliary duty is applicable in terms of Notification No. 107/77. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector (Refunds). Aggrieved by this order the importers filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals). Collector (Appeals) held that since the goods imported are used and second-hand scrap no c.v. duty is leviable on the goods. 3. In their appeal, the revenue has contested the order of the Collector (Appeals) on the following grounds : What the goods in question attract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handelwal Metal Engineering Works Another etc. v. Union of India Others. According to the ratio of the decision, application of process of manufacture to the imported article is irrelevant for levy of additional duty of customs and he referred to para 37 of sub-para Nos. 1,2,5 6 which is as under; The charging section under which duties of customs are leviable is Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Additional duty which is mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 partakes of the same character as the customs duty since, it is in addition to the duty which is leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, the rates for which are prescribed by Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty should be refunded to him. It was pointed out by the Bench that the claim for classification under a different tariff item amounted to a fresh ground for which he should have filed a cross objection and also application for admitting the fresh ground. 6. The submissions made have been considered and the view held by the Collector (Appeals) that the second-hand scrap cannot be deemed to be manufactured for levy of central excise duty is incorrect, in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court cited supra. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. 7. As for the additional ground on classification raised by the learned consultant, the following case laws would indicate that new grounds raised should be as per procedures set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
