MILAK BROTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals involve a common question as to whether the goods exported by the appellants are liable to export duty. There are 67 appeals which relate to various batches of exports made by the appellants during the period from 4-3-76 to 14-2-1982. They will be disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The goods exported by the appellants are blanched, roasted and salted peanuts packed in vacuum containers. THE appellants purchase groundnuts without shell in raw form from various parts of Saurashtra in the State of Gujarat. Thereafter, they are sorted out into different sized - small, medium and big. The medium and small sized are separated. Dust and husk are cleaned out and other foreign material removed. The commodity then goes to a dry roaster where it is roasted at a temperature of 1500C. This results in reduction of the moisture and destruction of enzymes to a considerable extent. It is also stated that by this process any fungus or aflatoxin is removed. After dry roasting, the product is cooled down with the aid of a blower so that the skin of the groundnuts become loose and the groundnut contracts. Thereafter, it goes through automatic blanching machines. This separates the skin of the groundnut and on removal of the skin it becomes white. Thereafter, the seeds are put on running tables and picked, according to uniform sizes, with the aid of an electric eye sorter. The commodity thereafter goes to a frying section for being subjected to deep oil bath frying in an automatic fryer. They are then subjected to anti-oxident chemicals and thereafter sent through the blower for being cooled down. The extra oil is sucked out. They are then subjected to a glazing process and are given permeated chemicals and salt treatment and are packed in packets and tins.

(3.) The appellant's contention, initially put forward before the Assistant Collector of Customs in an application for refund, was rejected by the Collector of Customs, on appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and, on further revision, by the Government of India under the then existing procedure. So far as the subsequent periods of exports were concerned, the contentions of the appellant were considered and rejected by a Full Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. The appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition from the order of the Central Government in revision dated 14-2-1978, which was admitted and numbered as Civil Appeal No. 390 of 1979. Against the other orders of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred appeals to this Court under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962.