9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 of the Customs Tariff. They also claimed the assessment of the goods at concessional rate of duty @ 50% (Basic) on the ground that the goods were covered by Srl. No. 66A of Notification No. 136/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986. The goods were permitted to be warehoused after being assessed provisionally. In respect of a quantity of 233.67 MTs of the goods cleared against Ex-bond Bills of Entry the importers were served with show cause notice requiring them to show cause as to why differential duty should not be recovered from them on the grounds that the goods in question being Ether derivative of Ethylene Glycol were chargeable to Basic Customs duty of 100% since they were specifically covered by Srl. No. 53E of Notification No. 136/86 and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed to appreciate that the expression Ethyl Glycol is synonym with Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether which in commercial parlance is understood and marketed as Ethyl Glycol . He submitted that the Collector (Appeals) observation that in terms of Explanatory notes to HSN Ethylene Glycol is covered by Heading 29.05 whereas Mono-Alkyl Ethers of Ethylene Glycol are covered by Heading 29.09 is not relevant since on the basis of the finding of the Tariff Conference of Collectors that Heading 29.05 in respect of Ethyl Glycol against Srl. No. 8 of the Notification No. 39/90 appeared to have been incorrectly indicated, the Government had by Notification No. 144/91-Cus. amended Notification No. 39/90-Cus. by replacing Heading 29.05 in column 2 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Notification No. 136/86-Cus. and Notification No. 39/90-Cus. by Srl. No. 53E and 38 respectively, as held by the Collector (Appeals) the rate specified in the notifications against the entry relating to Ethyl Glycol was not admissible in respect of the imported Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether. He stated that for the interpretation of technical terms in the notifications the common parlance test was not relevant. In support of his contentions he cited the following case law :- (i) Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collr. of Customs - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.); (ii) Hico Products Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 339 (S.C.) 4. We have examined the records of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is seen t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the book titled Solvents by Thomas H. Durrana the appellants have contended that `Ethyl Glycol is chemically referred to as `Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether and understood as `Ethyl Glycol . The Collector (Appeals) while rejecting the appellants contention has referred to the opinion of the chemical examiner that the product Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether is an Ether derivative of Ethylene Glycol . In support of his finding that Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether being an ether derivative of Ethylene Glycol" is covered by the specific entries against Serial Nos. 53E and 38 of Notification No. 136/86 and Notification No. 39/90 respectively, the Collector (Appeals) has also placed reliance on the information available in the Explanato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the more specific entry in the relevant notifications, namely Ether derivative of Ethylene Glycol" in preference to the entry which covered Ethyl Glycol . 7. In the case of Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 917, the Bombay High Court has held that the rule that the words should be construed in a popular sense will not be applicable in all cases and cannot be said to be all pervasive. This rule is a qualified rule and could apply only, if the statute contains language which is capable of being construed in popular sense. Hence, having regard to the fact that the fact the wordings of the relevant entries in Notification No. 136/86 and Notification No. 39/90 are purely scientific or technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants have cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jain Engineering Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 in which it was held that Notification No. 281/76 which mentioned internal combustion piston engines and parts thereof was also applicable to parts even though Heading 84.06 of the Custom Tariff indicated in the Notification in respect of the goods covered by it did not mention parts. In our view this judgment is distinguishable on facts since in the present case the question to be decided is as to which one of the two competing entries in the relevant notification is more specific in respect of the goods in question. 10. In view of the above discussion the appeal is rejected. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
