9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals by this common judgment. 2. The appellants, in both the cases were carrying on business of manufacturing plastic items in Falta Export Processing Zone. They used to import plastic granules from abroad and reprocess the same for the purpose of export. They were carrying on their business under an agreement with the Union of India by which they were not liable to pay any Customs Duty for such import on their export of the reprocessed goods to abroad. This facility was extended by Union of India as and by way of incentive so that foreign exchange could be earned and brought within the country by the exporting the reprocessed goods. 3. Under the agreement, the appellants were also entitled to sell a part of the reprocessed goods within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law as stipulated in the statute and as decided by the Apex Court in the precedents so cited before His Lordship came to conclusion that imposition of such counter veiling duty was not unreasonable as the purpose of such countervailing duty was to prevent unfair competition which might be faced by the indigenous manufacturers dealing with the identical products within the country. 7. Identical issue was considered by me sitting singly in the case of Durga Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2001 Volume 131, Excise Law Times, Page 544. In the said decision the importer of rejected aluminum cans came up questioning the authority of the revenue to levy countervailing duty on the used cans when those were brought out from the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in case of manufacture of like articles authority of the revenue to collect countervailing duty could not be questioned, was, however, not interfered with by the five Judges Bench. 9. The learned Single Judge in the instant case considered all the said decisions and ultimately came to a finding that exemption of excise duty extended to the indigenous manufacturers of plastic materials could not be extended to the importers who wanted to sell the reprocessed goods of like nature in DTA area and as such dismissed the writ petitions. 10. We heard both the appeals on the above-mentioned dates. 11. In addition to the points so canvassed by the appellants before the learned Single Judge Mr. Chowdhury appearing for the appellants contended be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended before CEGAT that since the ship was manufactured not only out of the components imported from outside but also by using indigenous components too the duty could only be levied on the imported components only. Such submission was also negated by CEGAT. 15. In the case of Narendra Pal Singh (supra) the goods were imported from outside solely for the purpose of exporting the same to Bangladesh and India was virtually used as a corridor. The learned Judge quashed the demand on account of anti dumping after finding that the goods were not dumped within the country. Such decision of His Lordship, in our view, has no application in the instant case. 16. In our view, the learned Judge rightly rejected the writ applications following the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
