COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. PRESTO INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for consideration in these appeals is as to whether or not, the respondent has been rightly given benefit of Notification No. 16/83-CE dated 11-2-1983, issued by the Central Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in regard to the payment of additional custom duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, on the waste and scrap of imported Cellulose Acetate sheets.

(2.) We have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The respondent, M/s. Presto Industries, is an industrial unit manufacturing combs and brushes, in Kandla Free Trade Zone, from the imported Cellulose Acetate sheets. On certain given conditions, exemption from payment of excise duty is admissible to the manufacturer in the Free Trade Zone. So far it relates to the resultant waste and scrap of the imported raw material, namely, Cellulose Acetate sheets, Customs Duty as well as additional duty is payable on the scrap being cleared for home consumption outside the Free Trade Zone. Undisputedly, on two clearances of the scrap, Custom Duty was assessed and the same was paid by the respondent. It was, however, later discovered during the audit that while assessing the liability, the respondent had been wrongly given benefit of Notification No. 16/83-CE dated 11-2-1983 and additional duty under Section 3 (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not levied. The duty was found to be short paid. Thus, two Demand Notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were issued in respect of two clearances, namely, Demand Notice No. FIZ/Cus/Demand/87-/7545/73 dated 26-6-1989 for a sum of Rs. 60,480/- and Demand Notice No. FIZ/Cus/Demand/85-86/1347 dated 16-10-1989 for a sum of Rs. 8870.40.