LAWS(SC)-1997-4-103

MIHIR TEXTILES LIMITED AHMEDABAD ADVANCE MILLS LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY:COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY

Decided On April 29, 1997
Mihir Textiles Limited Ahmedabad Advance Mills Limited Appellant
V/S
Collector Of Customs Bombay:Collector Of Customs Bombay Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these appeals the question involved is regarding the relief entitlement of the claimants to customs duty payable at the time of clearance of the imported commodities. Under Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff all items of machinery, including industrial plant, can get clearance on payment of a concessional rate of 40%, if the goods are imported under certain conditions against specific contract registered with the Customs House. The grievance of the appellants herein is that such relief was not granted to them.

(2.) The appellant in one of these appeals had imported 12 Air Jet Looms along with their accessories and the goods arrived at the Bombay Port on 18/3/1983. The appellant got them cleared from the port on 31/3/1983 on payment of full duty which was a little above 52 lakhs of rupees. On 13/4/1983 he applied to the Collector of Customs for granting registration of his contract with the buyer as envisaged in Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff and he got the registration on 22/4/1983. Then he filed a refund application on the premise that he is liable to pay customs duty only at the concessional rate shown in the aforesaid entry. But the claim for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector and then he filed an appeal before thecollector of Customs (Appeal) and got the order of the Assistant Collector set aside holding that the appellant is entitled to refund. However, the Department filed a further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal (CEGAT) and as per the order impugned before us CEGAT restored the Assistant Collector's order.

(3.) The main contention in the aforesaid appeal is that application for registration could not be made to the Collector of Customs before he got clearance of the goods from the port since he could get the recommendation from the Textile Commissioner only by 7/4/1983. Thus, for no fault on his part he could not avail himself of the concessional duty at the time of clearance.