9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying upon the notification 240/78/Cus, Annexure-C, has urged that the levy of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is without authority of law and has prayed for a consequential order of refund of the duty so paid and collected. The petitioner has also relied upon notification 178/77 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, which is superseded by notification 201/79. 4. The writ petition is resisted on behalf of the Revenue by Sri Shivashankar Bhat that the writ petition filed without exhausting alternative remedy under the Act should be dismissed in limine. However, since I have heard arguments on merits and the writ petition is of the year 1979, I propose to dispose of the writ petition on its merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mponents of watch parts imported by the petitioner could be exempted from the levy of additional duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. 7. This argument is countered by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the component parts imported by the petitioner-Company, are not eligible for exemption under Notification 118/75. According to his submission, only the components manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the same factory in which the finished products are manufactured, are eligible for exemption from the whole of the excise duty. The watch components which are imported by the petitioner-Company are not the component parts referred to in the Notification No.118 of 1975, and are therefore not eligible for exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he copper scrap imported by them even though they had used the same in the manufacture of copper alloys. It is also brought to my notice that the said Judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of India on an appeal filed by the petitioners, which is reported in AIR 1985 S.C. 1211. It is relevant to extract the relevant observation from the said judgment : "It cannot be said that S. 3(1) of the Tariff Act is not attracted in case of import of brass scrap merely because the damaged articles, which are in the nature of brass scrap, are outside the scope of that Act since, such articles are not and cannot be produced or manufactured. The duty referred to in S. 3(1) of the Tariff Act does not bear any nexus with the nature and quality of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the measure of the excise duty leviable on a like articles, if produced or manufactured in India. Sri Shivashankar Bhat has argued that similar components, if produced by any other manufacturer within India and supplied to the manufacturing company like the petitioner, it would, without any doubt, be exigible to duty under the Central Excise Act. Therefore, in his submission it should not make any difference if the components are imported from outside India are used in the manufacture of watches by the petitioner-company. The Supreme Court's decision in Khandelwal's case is a complete answer to the petitioner's contention. The notification No. 118/75 issued under the Central Excise Act, which is relied upon by the petitioner has ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
