9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. Mrs. Naveender P.K. Singh, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This petition seeks quashing of order dated 12-3-2008 Annexure-P-13. 2. The petitioner imported Zinc skimming, on which demand of additional customs duty equal to excise duty (CVD) was raised. The petitioner contested the same by relying on the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., 2004 (165) E.L.T. 386 (S.C.), Commissioner of Central Excise v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 2006 (203) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Hyderabad Industries Ltd v. Union of India, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). Plea of the petitioner was not accepted. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Zinc Skimming while the judgment relates to Zink Dross, Flux Skimming and Zinc Scaling arising as by-products during galvanization of steel sheets. 6. We find that the order dated 3-10-2007, referred to above, was an order passed before the impugned order. It has been clearly found in para No. 3 thereof that zinc skimming and dross was not excisable. The position appears to be settled legal position. Even respondent No. 2 in subsequent order dated 30-6-2008, a copy of which has been supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing, in paras 6 and 7 of the order, held:- "6. I have examined the case records. The brief issue for consideration is whether CVD was leviable on the import of Zinc Skimmings. The adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (120) E.L.T. 54 (S.C.). The learned DR tried to distinguish the said decision. He contended that the decision was rendered on the facts of the case and has no bearing on the present dispute. We are unable to agree with the submission. The decision lays down a principle of law that where excise duty cannot be levied on any goods, no countervailing duty/additional duty can be levied. Thus if we may say so with respect, is plain common sense. We therefore do not think that the Commissioner committed any error in upholding the claim of the assessee." 7. In view of the above cited decision of the Tribunal, the present appeal filed by the department does not sustain. The respondent have also contested the departmental appeal on the ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
