9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY], wherein the Bombay High Court had held that "it is impossible to imagine a case where in respect of raw nephtha used in HDPE in the foreign country, Central Excise duty leviable under the Indian Law can be levied or paid." Thus, the CEGAT found that only those conditions could be satisfied which were possible of satisfaction and the condition which was not possible of satisfaction had to be treated as not satisfied. - Following decision of Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House [1992 (8) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India [1999 (5) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and AIDEK Tourism Services Private Limited v. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) confirmed the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide orders dated 12.09.2002. In further appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT'), even the CEGAT has affirmed the order of the authorities below and dismissed the appeal. Entry/ Serial No. 122 in the Notification No. 6/2002 reads as under - S. No. Chapter or heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Rate under the First Schedule Rate under the Second Schedule Condition No. 122 5402.10 Nylon filament yarn o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia [1987 (32) ELT 262], wherein the Bombay High Court had held that it is impossible to imagine a case where in respect of raw nephtha used in HDPE in the foreign country, Central Excise duty leviable under the Indian Law can be levied or paid. Thus, the CEGAT found that only those conditions could be satisfied which were possible of satisfaction and the condition which was not possible of satisfaction had to be treated as not satisfied. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid reasoning is no longer good law after the judgment of this court in Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House [1992 (4) SCC 440] which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst limb which is of a like article being produced or manufactured in India. The words 'if produced or manufactured in India' do not mean that the like article should be actually produced or manufactured in India. As per the explanation if an imported article is one which has been manufactured or produced, then it must be presumed, for the purpose of Section 3(1), that such an article can likewise be manufactured or produced in India. For the purpose of attracting additional duty under Section 3 on the import of a manufactured or produced article the actual manufacture or production of a like article in India is not necessary. For quantification of additional duty in such a case, it has to be imagined that the article imported had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
