9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecognised Export Valuer) issued a certificate-Exhibit 'A' showing that synthetic waste imported by the Petitioners is a waste arising out of top manufacturing or spinning process. On 21-7-1983, the Petitioners filed a Bill of Entry along with the certificate Exhibit 'A' and requested the Third Respondent that they be permitted to clear the goods on giving bank guarantee for the full duty on the value of the imported goods as if the same is covered by Item No. 18-1V of the Central Excise Tariff 1985-86. He also pointed out that in some other cases same procedure is followed and no exception be made. The proper authority however rejected this request of the Petitioners which has given rise to the filing of this Writ Petition No. 1802 of 1983. As per the minutes of the order dated 2-8-1983, the Petitioners released the goods upon furnishing bank guarantee of a nationalised Bank in favour of the Collector of Customs in the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Out of this Bank Guarantee to Rs. 10,00,000/- the Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs. 7,97,488.87 P. was in respect of countervailing duty and the rest was towards the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This order dated August 2,1983 was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, not necessary to enlarge the scope of this petition beyond considering as to whether the imported synthetic waste falls under Item No. 68 or under Item No. 18-I(i) of the Central Excise Tariff. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it would be relevant to reproduce both the Tariff items : Item No. Tariff Description Rate of Duty 18.1. Man-made fibres, other than mineral fibres : (i) Non-cellulosic Eighty-five rupees per kilogram. (ii) Cellulosic Ten rupees per Kilogram. 68. All other goods, not elsewhere specified, but excluding Twelve per cent ad valorem. As stated earlier, there is no dispute that the waste imported by the Petitioners is non-cellulosic. According to Mr. Rana, the proper Authority has committed a patent error while treating the imported goods as falling under Item 18-IV. According to the learned Counsel, it neither falls under Item 18(1V) or under Item No. 18(1)(i). It must fall under residuary item viz. Item No. 68. In order to substantiate this submission Mr. Rana urged that a plain reading of the Tariff description given in Item No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o cover the goods, they naturally fell under the residuary Item No. 68. The exemption under the aforesaid notification was not applicable to the goods falling under Item 68. 6. In the light of what we have stated above, we allow the appeal partially to the extent that we order re-classification of the goods under Item No. 68 C.E.T. for the purpose of countervailing duty. But for this relief, the appeal is rejected." Mr. Rana then drew my attention to the order passed by the appellate authority under the Customs Act (in another case of similar importation) which had followed the judgment rendered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Learned Counsel submitted that consistent with this interpretation, it be held that the imported goods fall under residuary Item No. 68 and not under Item No. 18-IV as classified by the Customs department and consequently an amount of Rs. 7,24,189.27 P. being excess countervailing duty recovered by the Customs department be ordered to be refunded. It was conversely contended by Mr. Rege that the department does not agree with the interpretation given by the Appellate Tribunal and department has sent a proposal to move the hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference to noncellulosic waste in the description. Inferentially Mr. Rege wants me to cover non-cellulosic waste in the description of "and others". In a fiscal statute like this such inferential inclusion is not possible. In addition to this, the notifications cannot be read for the purposes of interpretation of the substantive provision viz. Item No. 18-I(i). Item No. J18-I(i) has got to be interpreted on the language used therein. On a plain reading of Item No. 18-1 (i) I am of the opinion that it includes only man-made fibre non-cellulosic as well as cellulosic but does not include waste. Mr. Rege inspite of his best efforts was also unable to point out the definition and/or precise meaning of man-made fibre. Mr. Rege strongly relied upon the definition of "soft waste" given in Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles by Mr. Isabel B. Wingate III Printing Edition 1974 on page 544. It defines "soft waste" as follows: "Soft waste-yarn waste without any twist or with the soft waste produced by roving frame as distinguished from hard waste which contains spinning twist. Obtained during yarn manufacturing operations preceding spinning." Relying upon the admission of the Petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
