9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Appeal No. C-259/85-B2 filed against order-in-appeal No. 2480-82/84 dated 21-8-1984 the appellants filed two supplementary appeals which were received in the Registry on 11-11-1991. Similarly two more supplementary appeals against Order No. 2490-92/84 dated 22-8-1984 have been filed. In their Misc. applications dated 7-11-1991 the appellants have prayed for condonation of delay in filing the supplementary appeals on the ground that the main appeals were filed in each case within the prescribed period. 2. Having regard to the fact that the main appeals filed against each of the impugned orders were filed within the prescribed period we condone the delay in filing of the supplementary appeals. 3. The issue involved in these appeals bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected the appeals on the grounds that the reference to the rate of duty under Headings 90.29(1) or 90.28(4) is to the statutory rate of duty and the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 cannot apply to goods which attract the duty under Heading 90.16(1) by reference only. He also observed that at the time of enactment of the rate of duty by reference under Heading 90.29(1) or 90.28(4), the makers could not have foreseen any concessional rate of duty in respect of goods covered by Heading No. 90.16(1). 5. On behalf of the appellants the learned consultant Shri B.N. Sharma appeared before us. He stated that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that reference to the rate of duty under Heading 90. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same date i.e. 2-8-1976. In this regard Shri Sharma referred the Hand-book incorporating the salient features of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which was issued by the Ministry of Finance and stated that in view of the difficulties envisaged between differention of electrical and non-electrical measuring and checking instruments it was clarified that the same rate of duty was being provided on both electrical and non-electrical measuring and checking instruments. He claimed that the issue was covered in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal s Order No. 343/1990-B2. 6. On behalf of the Revenue the learned SDR Shri S.K. Roy stated that the rate of duty on goods classifiable under Heading Nos. 90.29(1) and 90.28(4) of the Tariff would in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ription of goods Rate of duty 1 2 3 90.16 Drawing, marking-out and mathematical calculating instruments, drafting machine pantographs, slide rules, disc calculators and the like; measuring or checking instruments, appliances and machines, not falling within any other Heading of this Chapter (for example, micrometers, callipers, gauges, measuring rods, balancing machines); profile projectors: (1) Not elsewhere specified 60% 90.28 Electrical measuring, checking, analysing or automatically controlling instruments and apparatus: (1)........ (2)........ (3)........ (4) Electrical instruments and apparatus the non-electric counter-parts of which fall under Heading Nos. 90.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.15.1 including Television Cameras would be admissible in view of the remark against Heading 90.02 that the rate of duty applicable would be the rate applicable to the instruments or apparatus to which they were parts or fittings. The Hon ble High Court held that the words rate of duty applicable to in Heading No. 90.02 can be taken as referring to only the rate specified in the other heading in the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, and not to the rate of duty that may be leviable from time to time having regard to an exemption given under the provision of Section 25. The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced below :- 8. It was submitted by Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, I that the words the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eunder the goods of any specified description which are exempted from Customs duty. It would, therefore, be impermissible to read into an exemption notification under Section 25 goods which are not, in fact, specified therein. It cannot be read as conferring a benefit upon goods or persons not described therein. It must be read as covering only such goods or persons as are described in it. 12. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.N. Dave - AIR 1970 S.C. 755. The Supreme Court said that it was well established that in a taxing statute there was no room for any intendment. The entire matter was governed wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax-payer was within the plain terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
