9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber and October, 1998. They filed Bill of Entry at Customs Rail Cargo Complex, Amritsar claiming exemption from payment of Special Additional Duty of Customs in terms of Notification No. 34/98-Cus., dated 13-6-98 as amended by Notification No. 56/98-Cus., dated 1-8-98. One of the conditions of the aforesaid notifications was that the goods were exempt from payment of Special Additional Duty only if the same were not sold from a place where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of the goods. The appellants had declared that the sale of imported onions would not be effected from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of goods. An undertaking was given by the importers to the effect that if the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act provides for imposition of Special Additional Duty on imported goods having regard to the maximum sales tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being leviable on a like articles on its sale or purchase in India. It is thus evident from the words of Section 3A(1) that the Special Additional Duty is to be levied having regard to the maximum sales tax etc. leviable on a like article on its sale or purchase in India. Notification No. 56/98 exempts the Special Additional Duty subject to the condition that the goods are not sold from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of goods. The entire Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 3(4) of the Customs Tariff Act are pari materia to Section 3(3) of the Additional Duty Act, 1957. The penalties imposed are, therefore, set aside. The appeal is, thus, partly allowed. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the facts in their case are identical to the case cited above and prays that imposition of penalties may be set aside. 6. Ms. Ananya Ray, learned SDR reiterated the findings of the Authorities below and submits that the demand of duty confirmed by the Authorities below is sustainable in law and may be ordered accordingly. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions made we note that confirmation of the Special Additional Duty of Customs was not contested before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
