9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imported three consignments of microscopical stains in packings ranging from 5 grms. to 500 grms. The Customs authorities assessed the goods to basic customs duty leviable under Heading No. 29.01/45 (9) of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. This heading reads as follows :- Laboratory chemicals, organic and inorganic, as defined in Note 2 to this Chapter. Note 2 reads as follows : In addition to those specified in note 1 above, this chapter also covers all chemicals, organic and inorganic, whether or not chemically defined, imported in packing not exceeding half kilogram or half litre and which can be identified with reference to their purity, marking or other features to show them to be meant for use solely as lab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsignment cleared on Bill of entry cash No. 2858, dated 16-12-1978, the application for refund was received in the office of the Assistant Collector on 24-8-1979 i.e. after a period of six months from the date of payment of duty. It was rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the respondents preferred appeals before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The Appellate Collector held that the language of Item No. 14D CET showed that nothing should be classified thereunder if, in fact, it is not used either as dyestuff or as derivative in dyeing process. The effect of dyeing might very much be there when laboratory specimens are stained. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 to the respondents under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1982 calling upon them to show cause why the Appellate Collector s orders should be set aside and why the Assistant Collector s orders should not be restored or modified as considered fit. 7. The respondents, by a letter dated 17-9-1980, denied the allegations in the show cause notice and reiterated their contentions before the lower authorities. In particular, they stated that laboratory stains are dealt with by a small number of people dealing in laboratory chemicals. Dealers in dyes and dyestuffs do not deal in laboratory stains. They contended that dyeing process is predominantly a process used in the textile industry and staining laboratory specimens cannot be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Laboratory stains were also dyes and they correctly fell under Item No. 14D CET. Shri Sundar Rajan cited certain decisions in support of his contentions to which we shall refer later. 10. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, Shri V.N. Deshpande , ld. Counsel, drew our attention to the letter dated 23-9-1979 from the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - I to M/s. Mehtachem., Bombay to the effect that laboratory chemicals, namely microscopical stains and pH indicators, were classifiable under Item No. 68 CET so long as they were not used in any dyeing process in textile industry. Since the present goods were not used in textile industries but were used in the laboratory they would not fall under Item 14D but under Item No. 68 CET. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmination in those cases. In Lucas - T.V.S. Ltd., Madras v. Union of India - 1978 vol no. E.L.T. (J 711), the Madras High Court held that the Schedules of the Customs Tariff Act and the Central Excises and Salt Act do not have the same basis of classification and so long as Sections 2 and 2A of the Tariff Act, 1934 (the present provisions are Section (2) and Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975) did not, in terms, lay down that classification once made shall hold good for purposes of both the sections, it must be held that the provisions of each of the two sections have to be read without reference to the other. Thus the fact that the present goods were classified - and there is no dispute on this -score - under Heading No. 29.01/4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject goods are correctly classifiable under Item No. 14D CET and not under Item 68. 13. The Appellate Collector s order ignoring the fact that one of the refund claims was hit by the limitation in Section 27(1) of the Customs Act is not correct and it is contrary to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1633 of 1984 which upheld the decision of this Tribunal in Miles India Ltd., Baroda v. Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 Vol. No. E.L.T. 1026 (CEGAT) to the effect that quasi-judicial authorities functioning under the Customs Act are not competent to overlook or ignore the said limitation. 14. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of the Appellate Collector are set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
