9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector of Customs, Bombay dated 20-9-1978, rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner on account of countervailing duty. This revision petition has since been received by transfer under the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act and is being disposed of as an appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The facts as set out in the appeal revealed that the appellant had imported goods described as Electrical Insulating Tapes bearing the trade name "Samicatherm Tape" of specified grades. The imports had taken place during the period August-October, 1977 by means of 17 different consignments. The goods were assessed for the purposes of basic custom duty to be falling under Tariff Item 68.01/16(1) of the Customs Tariff. However, so far as coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only with effect from 18-6-1977 when the annual Finance Bill was introduced that Item 59 was deleted out of the Tariff. 5. It is further averred that although Entry 22F continued to exist but simultaneously with the deletion of Tariff Entry 59 dealing specifically with these items, and before the Finance Bill became the Act, the Central Government issued a notification on 18-6-1977, being Notification No. 173/77 providing 2% as rate of duty for these articles previously covered by Item 59 of the CET. It is urged that this was the rate then prevailing for articles falling under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and that by virtue of this notification, the Central Government made their intention manifest to the effect that after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were previously excisable with reference to Item 59, would now be charged to excise duty at the rate of 2% ad valorem, and he pointed out that this was the rate prevailing for all articles falling under Item 68 of the CET. He further drew our attention to a Tariff advice dated 28-7-1981 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs that as a result of reviewing the matter, it was considered that "Electrical Insulating Tapes" should be classified under Item 68 of the CET instead of Item 60. He built up his arguments, highlighting the fact that this clarification made it clear that Entry 22F was not considered to be the appropriate heading for these articles, and the only doubt was as to whether these goods would go under the general ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective operation, and so the appellant may not get benefit of the said change but nevertheless intention of the Legislature that these goods could not be treated as falling under Entry 22F is unmistakably manifested from other circumstances brought on record by the appellant, which remain undisputed. These circumstances being : (1) Issuance of Notification No. 173/77, dated 18-6-1977 providing special rate of duty for these articles known as "Electrical Insulating Tapes"; (2) This being the rate which was prevalent at that time for all articles falling under Item 68 of the CET; (3) This was in spite of Entry 22F in the Tariff; and (4) Lastly, the Tariff Advice issued by the Board subsequently indicates that the doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
