9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade liable to pay the same. The judgment in the case of Polyset Corporation [ 1999 (10) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] deals with the Excise Act. Under the Excise Act, the taxable event occurs when the goods are manufactured, but the collection of the duty may be deferred for administrative convenience. It is, therefore, the date of manufacture which is relevant for the purposes of excise duty and any additional duty thereon. That is what has been held in the case of Polyset Corporation. It has no application to these appeals. The judgment in the case of J.K. Synthetics [ 1999 (10) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] is quite alien to the issue that is before us. Appeal dismissed. - 4270-4275 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2002 - S.P. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thetics (120 E.L.T. 54). 4.In the case of Kiran Spinning Mills, a contention similar to that raised before us was raised on behalf of the assessee. It is set out in Paragraph 5 of that judgment and repelled in Paragraph 6, both of which are set out below and are self-explanatory. It"5. is contended by Mr. Ramachandran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that at the time when the goods were imported into India the Ordinance had not been promulgated and no additional duty of excise was payable on like articles. Therefore, additional duty under Section 3 of the Tariff Act could not be imposed, he also sought to place reliance on a tariff Advise/Circular issued on 3rd of October, 1978 by the Revenue Authorities to the eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent occurs when the customs barrier is crossed. In the case of goods which are in the warehouse the customs barriers would be crossed when they are sought to be taken out of the customs and brought to the mass of goods in the country. Admittedly this was done after 4th October, 1978. As on that day when the goods were so removed additional duty of excise under the said Ordinance was payable on goods manufactured after 4th October, 1978. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ramachandran that what has to be seen is whether additional duty of excise was payable at the time when the goods landed in India or, as he strenuously contended, they had crossed into the territorial waters. Import being complete, when the goods entered the terr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
