9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Facts giving rise to this review proposal are that M/s. Jay Insulators, Baroda, the respondents herein, imported F.C.M. Flanges made of aluminium and cleared the same through customs on payment of duty under Bill of Entry dated 30-3-1989. The said flanges were re-exported after fitting the same in porcelain housings claiming drawback in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents went in appeal before Collector (Appeals) who by his impugned order allowed the same. 4. In pursuance of the review proposal of the Collector of Customs, Bombay a show-cause notice of even number dated 12-11-1990 was issued to the respondents. They were also heard on 30-12-1991 in person through their advocates Shri M.A. Rangaswamy and Ms. Dharini Seshadri. 5. Government have carefu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed body like the Directorate of Drawback before the rates comes into operation. Once this is accepted it is immaterial whether an export product has only two components like in this case one of which is imported earlier and the other locally made or there are a number of components making it difficult to apportion duty paid vis-a-vis individual components. Just like a rebate of drawback on export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not available on such components. 7. As regards the respondent's plea that even if there is mounting of the housings, it does not amount to manufacture, Government observe (hat concept of manufacture is not relevant for Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is observed that what the respondents imported were F.C.M. flanges whereas they exported porcelain housings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
