9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Union of India passed on 6th December, 1971, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of countervailing duty on the ground that the said claim was time-barred. 2. To appreciate the contention urged by Mr. Daljit Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner 1 may notice a few facts. The petitioner imported four cartons of radio parts used in the manufacture of electronic instruments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are allowed to be imported to use in making electronic instruments". 3. Reference to the excise duty by the petitioner in the said application is to the additional countervailing duty. It is submitted that the additional countervailing duty is leviable on those products when similar products are manufactured in the country and which products are subject to levy of excise duty. This position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t applicable at the relevant time. Mr. Daljit Singh submits that at the relevant time in the year 1968-69 Indian Tariff Act, 1934, was applicable and it was under Section 2-A of that Act that countervailing duty had to be paid. The Indian Tariff Act, 1934, was repealed and Customs Tariff Act was enacted in the year 1975. It is under Section 3 of that Act that, additional duty equal to excise duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellate as well as the revisional authority on the question whether the countervailing duty was leviable at all in the present case. The petitioner's case, as noticed above, has throughout been that that duty was not leviable. The authorities below have not discussed this aspect. 6. In their counter-affidavit in reply to Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition the stand taken by the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
