9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orner from which tea can be filled or taken out. They do not require closing by stitching or pasting. 4. The appellant imported these `CADISACS under OGL in the light of clarification by DGTD. 5.The Calcutta Customs had also given clarification to them that the CADISACS are covered by Notification No. 97/79. 6. It is only after such clarifications that they imported the consignment of CADISACS in question and filed the Bill of Entry for home consumption claiming benefit of Notification No. 97/79. 7. The Customs however, took the view that Notification No. 150/80 (as amended) was more appropriate. 8. It was their contention that under both the notifications full exemption was available subject to re-export within six months or extended time. 9. As a matter of fact in the Bills of Entries which were filed earlier, benefit of 97/79-Cus. was claimed by them but changed by the Customs Authorities to 150/80. Therefore, subsequently they started mentioning 150/80 as per the directions of the Customs. All the Bills of Entries were assessed as per the orders of the Addl. Collector/D.C. Customs and the consignments were assessed `duty free as evident from the copies of the Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re and construction of the product and its capability of withstanding rigours and toughness of export therein from tea gardens to foreign destinations on board trucks/trains/ships itself shows their durable nature. This is further buttressed by foreign suppliers certificate. 16 The items like drums, gas cylinders and bottles referred to in CBEC Circular are only illustrative and do not restrict the scope or ambit of the exemption. 17. It was also their submission that the Ld. Collector has erred in holding that they did not claimed 97/79. In any case they cannot be prevented from claiming that exemption when Customs Authorities have subsequently changed their stand and in this connection he would rely on the case of FCI reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 963 and in the case of Hindustan Aeronautic Ltd. reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 70. 18. Further the Collector (Appeals) has erred in holding that no bond was executed because they did execute a bond although instead of 97/79 it was given under 150/80 as required by Customs but there was no difference in the bond required to be executed under the two Notifications. Therefore, the bond executed for 150/80 would be equally valid for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely upon the Hon. Supreme Court decision in the case of Godffrey Philips (India) reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 306. 25. It was also their contention that A.C. had no right, authority or jurisdiction to raise demand contrary to the order passed by the Deputy Collector which was also endorsed on the Bill of Entry. Since the order was not appealed against, the said order was binding and the A.C. could not ignore it and pass a different order. In this connection, he would rely on the Tribunal s order in the Case of Essel Packaging, reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 430. 26. Last but not the least, the A.C. s order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In spite of their requests a copy of the D.C. s order was not supplied to the appellants. Similarly the alleged clarification by the board was also not supplied to the appellants. 27. The Ld. D.R. drew attention to Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal. He stated that at the time of clearance the Bills of Entry were passed free of duty under Customs Notification No. 150/80 although initially the importers had claimed the benefit of 97/79 but the same was not accepted and the goods were assessed under 150/80. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this respect, we notice that the assessments were admittedly provisional and the appellants had furnished a bond to re-export the CADISACS within six months or such extended period as A.C. may allow, according to a provision which is there both in Notification Nos. 97/79 and 150/80. In the circumstances, the D.C s order also assumes a tentative or provisional character. Further, Clause 2 of the Notification No. 150/80 (as also second proviso to 97/90) give authority to the Assistant Collector (by designation) to take action. 36. In this connection, Ld. Counsel s argument that this provision was related merely to re-export aspect does not affect this position as it does not take away the authority of the A.C. to reconsider the matter as a whole in view of the provisional nature of the order of clearance at the time of importation and the power vested in the A.C. 37. We therefore, hold that the A.C. was within his jurisdiction and authority to pass the impugned order and there is no doubt that the A.C. was a competent authority to finalise the assessment. 38. In so far as the merits are concerned however, the Ld. Counsel s arguments have a lot of force. 39. First and fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
