9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate the controversy, it is necessary to set out few facts. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorported under the Companies Act and carries on business in imports of various chemicals and other materials. The Company imported 499.998 Metric Tonnes of 2-Ethylhexanol (Octanol) from the foreign suppliers. The Company filed Bills of Entry for clearance on November 8, 1983 on arrival of the goods. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of customs duty while calculating the assessable value for levy and collection of additional duty. Accordingly, in pursuance of the interim order the petitioners cleared the goods. Before clearance of the goods the Company became aware that the imported goods is a kind or specifies of alcohol and countervailing duty would not be leviable on such import. Accordingly, the Company moved the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned Counsel is that the levy of countervailing duty by the Department was clearly without authority of law. This submission deserves acceptance in view of the decision of Single Judge reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 617 (Bom.) = 1987 (11) ECC 181 (Raman Kantilal Bhandari v. Union of India Ors.) and which decision is confirmed by Division Bench in the decision reported in 1990 (29) ECC 152 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. It is impossible to accede to the submission for more than one reason. In the first instance it is not known why the circular was not brought to the attention of the Division Bench although it was available right from 1987 onwards. Secondly, the circular cannot determine the ambit of the expression and clarificatory circular is obviously issued to overcome the judgment of the Single Judge of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
