MSCO PVT LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under S. 130-E(b) of the Customs Act. 1962 against Order No. 297-B/84 dated April 25. 1984 passed by. the Customs. Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal, New Delhi.

(2.) The appellant imported two consignments weighing 0.955 m. tonne and 1.071 m. tonnes of stainless steel plates covered by Bill of Entry No. 725/111 dated August 2, 1979 and Bill of Entry No. 520/250 dated July 16, 1979 respectively. Under. S. 12 of the Customs Act, 1062 the appellant was liable to pay customs duty in accordance with Heading No. 73.15 of the First Schedule to the Customs tariff Act, 1975 at the standard rate of 220% ad valorem. But under the notification dated July 15, 1977 an importer was liable to pay import duty of 40% only on the said goods provided the conditions mentioned therein were satisfied. In order to avail of the said concessional rate of duty the importer should import 'the goods for the manufacture of all or any of the articles specified in that notification and should bind himself by the execution of a bond in such form and for such sum as may be specified by the Assistant Collector of Customs to pay on demand in respect of such quantity of imported stainless steel plates as is not proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to have been used for such manufacture an amount equal to the difference between the duty leviable on such quantity but for the exemption contained in the notification and that already paid at the time of importation. It was further provided that the articles so manufactured had to be sold to industrial units for their use and payment for such articles was to be made by the concerned industrial unit by a crossed cheque drawn on the buyer's own bank account. Accordingly the appellant executed two bonds which were guaranteed by a branch of the Dena Bank and cleared the goods, by paying customs duty at the consessional rate undertaking to comply with the requirements of the notification. Subsequently on March 10, 1980, the Assistant Collector called upon the appellant to pay full customs duty as the end-use certificates in respect of the goods in question had not been filed before the Customs Department. Then the appellant forwarded the required certificates issued by its Chartered Accountants certifying that the goods had been consumed in the manufacture of the articles specified in the notification such as pharmaceutical machineries (equipment), pressure vessels, jacketted vessels etc., and the same had been sold to fertilizers and chemical industry and petroleum and oil refinery industry. But the Assistant Collector of Customs directed the payment of Rs. 24,244/- and Rs. 26,850/- being the deficient duty payable in respect of the two consignments in terms of the bonds stating that in the course of investigation it was revealed that the appellant had sold some of the manufactured items to a local dealer and not to industrial units for their own use and that some items had been sold to hospitals/ nursing homes which were not industrial units. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector the appellant filed two appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, contesting inter alia the finding that hospitals were not industrial units. The Appellate Collector rejected the appellant's contention that hospitals were industrial units and held that as far as the supplies effected by the 'appellant to hospitals and nursing homes were concerned the condition that the manufactured goods should be sold to industrial units had not been fulfilled. The appeals were rejected to that extent. The cases were, however remanded to the Assistant Collector for fresh decision on another issue with which we are not concerned. Against the common order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in the above said two appeals the appellant filed a revision petition under S. 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, as it then stood, before the Government of India. That revision petition was later on transferred to the above said Tribunal. The appellant also filed another appeal before the Tribunal directly since there were two appeals before the Appellate Collector. The principal contention urged before the Tribunal was that the Department was wrong in holding that hospitals and nursing homes were not industrial units. The Tribunal rejected that contention and dismissed the appeals. This appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) When the above case came up for admission the only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Tribunal was not right in holding that hospitals and nursing homes were not industries and reliance was placed by him on a decision of this Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in which it had been held that hospitals, dispensaries and nursing homes were also industries. As the appellant has relied on a decision of this Court arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in support of its case which requires to be distinguished we are passing this order giving our reasons although it is not usual to do so when an appeal is dismissed without notice to the respondents.