9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s concerned. In his Order-in-Original the Collector of Customs, New Delhi had demanded duty of Rs. 9,58,810.18, disallowed the already granted refund of Rs. 1,67,227.15 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The appellants had filed stay application and the Tribunal had directed the appellants to pre-deposit the entire duty amount. The appellants challenged the stay order in the Hon ble Delhi High Court and the High Court asked the appellants to deposit a Rs. 5,00,000/- and to furnish the security of plant and machinery to the satisfaction of the Collector, Customs. High Court ordered that after the Collector Customs was satisfied that the security of the plant and machinery being adequate the appeal of the petitioner (appellant before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id rules. It was also his plea that the General Rules of Interpretation were only for determining the classification under the Tariff and not for extending the benefit of exemption notification. He referred to the Tribunal decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1996 (16) RLT 646 (Tribunal). He pleaded that the importers had not correctly described the goods imported and there was suppression of the facts as discussed by the Adjudicating Authority in his order. It was his submission that under Section 46(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, it was incumbent on the importers to correctly described the goods. In this case, the parts had been imported while the goods had been described as bulbs. He also pleaded th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be had only when the goods are not otherwise classifiable in terms of the headings read with applicable section/chapter notes. In this case the goods imported were solely and predominantly usable with the automobile bulb. The goods in the form imported were not covered by any specific heading/sub-heading. They had to be classified in terms of Note 2(b) under Section XVI of the Tariff. 8. The Departmental Representative had referred to the Tribunal decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [1996 (16) RLT 646 (Tribunal)] where the Tribunal had observed that the interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Tariff was not applicable to exemption notification. As we have observed above in terms of the Rule 1 of the Gene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o January, 1990. It is seen from the statement that Page 27 of the paper book that the assessment from 29-9-1989 were provisional assessment. The limitation thus for the period from 29-9-1989 onwards will be relevant. As regards the period 22-11-1988 to 31-1-1989 it is seen that the countervailing duty was levied and paid and was specifically refunded. For the period from 21-2-1989 to 7-9-1989 the countervailing duty was not levied and the goods were cleared after extending the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/83-C.E. The date on which the duty was refunded to the appellants in respect of the Bill of entries dated 22-11-1988, 3-1-1989 and 30-1-1989 is not on record. We specifically asked the ld. Advocate with regard to the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
