9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The appellant in this case, namely, Collector of Customs, Cochin has now filed an appeal before CEGAT against this order, holding that it is not proper and against law. Shri S.C. Rohtagi, learned JDR, has urged before us that so long as there is an article which is imported into India, it would be subject not only to customs duty under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, but also to additional duty prescribed by Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The taxable event, according to the appellant is the import of the product and it is immaterial whether such product is manufactured in India or not. It is pleaded that the mere fact that as per notification the additional duty is stated to be equal to excise duty leviable for the time being on like article does not mean that duty cannot be charged or calculated unless Central Excise Duty is charged on a like article manufactured or produced in India. It is stated that reference to Central Excise Duty is only for purposes of quantification of duty. It is further pleaded that copper waste and scrap are specifically included in Item 26A (1b) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India two others - 1982 E.L.T. 64. 3. CEGAT decision in the case of Modella Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 E.L.T. 1020. 3. We have carefully considered the facts of the matter and the submissions made by both sides. The main points for consideration before us are, (a) Whether the imported product, namely, copper waste and scrap which is stated to be not a manufactured item but second-hand used materials would be classifiable under central excise tariff and, therefore, liable to countervailing duty on import even though by itself not a manufactured item; and (b) If so, whether such products could claim exemption from countervailing duty by virtue of similar exemption enjoyed by like indigenous products under Notification No. 35/81 which exempts scrap used in the manufacture of chemicals. 4. The Collector (Appeals) granted relief to the respondents on consideration of only first point. We also proceed to consider the matter first on this point and if on examination, the finding is in favour of the appellants then we would have to consider the second point which was included in the respondents submissions before the Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of articles to which the imported article belongs. Examining the issue at length, the Hon ble Delhi High Court observed that although the product under import was brass scrap which was claimed to have been obtained not as a result of any process of manufacture as such the waste and scrap was not to be taken as items which were thrown away or rubbish. They observed : Had brass scrap not been a commercially known commodity in the sense that it can be bought and sold, it might have been open to argument that brass scrap, even if obtained in the process of manufacturing fine products cannot be considered goods and thus no manufacture is involved but admittedly that is not the position here because the brass scrap is understood in the common trade parlance and is accepted as a commodity which can be bought and sold. 8. Referring to the petitioners case that they import brass scrap, the said scrap does not consist of scrap obtained in the process of manufacture of brass product but of broken water tapes, worn out and damaged sanitary fittings and other worn out and damaged parts and components of brass products which have been discarded after use since they have become unfit fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries v. Central Board of Excise Customs Another, the Hon ble High Court of Madras held that in order to attract liability for payment of countervailing duty under Section 2(a) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1934, an excise duty shall be leviable on like products if produced or manufactured in India. If no excise duty was payable on a like article, if produced or manufactured in India, no countervailing duty would be payable. We do not think that the respondents can get any benefit from this decision in view of the fact that in the instant case, the facts were quite different since the products imported by the petitioners, namely, acrylic sheets were specifically exempted from payment of duty when manufactured from methacrylate monomer which condition the petitioners product satisfied. It was accordingly held that since no central excise duty was leviable on the product manufactured within the country, there would be no countervailing duty attracted on import of like goods into the country. 10. Coming to the facts of this case, we find that the respondents had claimed exemption under Notification No. 33/81, dated 1-3-1981. However, on perusal of the notification it is seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
