9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff, additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is leviable. (iii) As a result consequential admissible refund is ordered to be sanctioned in view of encashment of Bank Guarantee for Rs. 1,42,336.55. 2. The facts in brief as set out in the memo of Appeal are that M/s. Punjab Processors Ltd., Ludhiana imported 31 bales of synthetics waste in the year 1982 through Bombay Port. The customs assessed these goods under T.I. 18-IV of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of levy of CVD. The goods were brought at Ludhiana under Bond without payment of duty and re-warehoused at C.V.C., Ludhiana. At the time of finalizing the Bill of Entry, the goods were assessed under T.I. 18-IV for levy of CVD b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the learned Collector (Appeals) that the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of R.K. Synthetic Fibres (P) Ltd. is pending decision before the Hon ble Supreme Court and had not acquired the finality. 4. Shri Harbans Singh, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents herein submitted that their case is fully covered by the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. R.K. Synthetics and Fibres (P) Ltd. Reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 214 in which it was held that on a plain reading of Item No. 18-I(i) it is clear that it includes man-made fibres non-cellulosic as well as cellulosic but does not include waste. If the synthetic waste which was imported by the petitioners does not fall under Item No. 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fibres imported we find that in the instant case, no doubt the above plea has been taken by the department but at the same time, the Department has not been able to produce any test report that the synthetic waste arose in relation to the manufacture of fibres itself or man-made filament yarn. The learned SDR clearly admitted that he has not been able to get any test report. We find that the Department claimed the assessment of the goods under T.I. 18-IV for the purpose of levy of countervailing duty whereas the respondents herein have claimed that the product in question is classifiable under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. 6. Let us now see what is the description of the goods under T.I. No. 18-IV and 68 of the then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
