9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ordinance, 1978 was promulgated which came into force w.e.f. 19th October, 1978. In terms of the Ordinance articles were charged with an additional duty to excise equal to 10 per cent of the basic excise duty payable on such articles under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It is not in dispute the correspondingly under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 additional duty on such articles which were imported became payable equivalent to the additional excise duty levied under the said Ordinance. 4.The articles which were imported by the appellants were cleared from the bonded warehouse after 4th October, 1978 . The Customs Authorities demanded an additional duty at the rate of 10 per cent under the aforesaid Ordinance. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Others [1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = JT 1999 (4) SC 95] that for the purpose of levy of additional duty Section 3 of the Tariff Act is a charging section. Section 3 sub-section (6) makes the provisions of the Customs Act applicable. This would bring into play the provisions of Section 15 of the Customs Act which, inter alia, provides that the rate of duty which will be payable would be on the day when the goods are removed from the bonded warehouse. That apart, this Court has held in Sea Customs Act - 1964 (3) SCR 787 at page 803 that in the case of duty of customs the taxable event is the import of goods within the customs barriers. In other words, the taxable event occurs when the customs barrier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the date of the taxable event the additional duty of excise was leviable under the said Ordinance and, therefore, additional duty under Section 3 of the Tariff Act was rightly demanded from the appellants. 7.For the aforesaid reasons and the reasons stated in Union of India and Others v. Apar Private Ltd. and Others (CA Nos. 1257-58/87) [1999 (112) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3973 of 1983 8.This writ petition is dismissed in view of the judgment in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Others [1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = JT 1999 (4) SC 95]. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 821 of 1987 9.This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
