9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o filed detailed written submissions in Misc. Application No. C/Misc./1237/91-B2. Accordingly, we have proceeded to pass this order after hearing Shri B.K. Singh, learned SDR for the revenue. 3. The main dispute relates to levy of countervailing duty on the imported goods cinematographic and film laboratory equipments and whether this item is to be classified under 37AA of C.E.T. as held by the Department or under 68 of C.E.T. as claimed by the appellants. 4. While arguing for the revenue, Shri Singh raised two points. He said that apart from the merits of the case, at the first instance the concerned order in assessment (Supplementary) dated 21-4-1983 passed by the Assistant Collector was void ab initio and without jurisdiction. He sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions made by the party on the functioning of the item in question. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned D.R. on both the issues and perused the records including written submissions filed by the party. We find an order of assessment was duly passed by the Assistant Collector on 27-11-1982 on the issue of classification for the purpose of customs duty but without touching on the issue whether it was classifiable under 37AA or under 68 of C.E.T. for the purpose of countervailing duty. Subsequently on request made by the party an order in assessment (Supplementary) dated 21-4-1983 was passed by the Assistant Collector classifying the item under 37AA of C.E.T. which is the subject matter of appeal before us. We observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assistant Collector is merged in the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and appeal against any order or decision passed by the Collector (Appeals) lies to the Tribunal and Tribunal also being a creature of the very Statute, we do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the D.R. on the issue of jurisdiction. We are of the opinion that order passed by the Assistant Collector was voidable and not void. The decision referred to by the D.R. is not applicable to the facts of this case as corrigendum was issued for modifying earlier order in that case. In the instant case it is not a case of modification but correcting the omission as covered under Section 154 of the Customs Act. In the view we have taken the department fails ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
