9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaks of the Customs duty chargeable on like goods produced or manufactured outside India and the import duty chargeable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the classification list @ 12.5% under Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 read with Notification No. 40/93-Cus., dated 28-2-1993 has rightly been approved by the Asstt. Collector and the refund claim has also been rightly rejected by the above impugned Order-in-Original appeals against. This is immaterial whether the refund claim has been filed with proper documents or not. This would have been relevant provided the refund had been admissible to the appellants. I, therefore, confirm both the Order-in-Original. Apples are rejected . Being aggrieved by this order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 16. We have given deep thought to these contentions and we have come to the conclusion that, plausible and attractive as the argument urged on behalf of the State, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and the Appellate Tribunal has to be upheld. But before dealing with this aspect, we may dispose of two minor questions. The first which arises in the Bharat Petroleum case is whether Rule 41 contemplates that the goods purchased by the dealer should be used for manufacture of taxable goods for sale by him. The High Court has given good reasons, with which we are inclined to agree, for holding that no such restrictions can be read into his rule but this contention is of no significance in view of our conclusion that the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to apply for and obtain a recognition certificate for the manufacture of sludge and it has also paid tax as dealers in acid sludge. These two contentions have, therefore, to be rejected. He submitted that according to this decision Cotton Soft Waste was a Waste and was not a manufactured product and since it was not a manufactured product, therefore, it was not liable to duty. He submitted that since the goods were not excisable, therefore, there was no question of levy of any duty on Soft Waste of Cotton. He submitted that Section 3A provides for levy of duty on goods manufactured or produced in India. He submitted, therefore, for levy of duty the goods should be manufactured and since Soft Waste of Cotton was not a manufactured goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared from 100% E.O.U. to the Domestic Tariff Area it will be chargeable to duty @ 50% of the effective rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995. Ld. DR submits that in this view of the matter, there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the lower Appellate Authorities and therefore, prays that the same may be upheld and the appeal may be rejected. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that there are two issues for determination before us. The first issue is whether Soft Waste of Cotton is not goods and chargeable to nil rate of duty or is not goods for levy of duty and the second issue is whether the refund claim is justified. 6. On the first issue we note that Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
