DHRUNAL CHHOTALAL PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner carries on business in the name and style of Star Metal and Tubes Corporation at Bombay. The petitioner, in the course of his business, imported copper scrap which arrived in Bombay per vessel RISHI VALMIKI on or about 19th of March 1980. In respect of the copper scrap so imported the respondents demanded, inter alia, additional duty of customs. The petitioner however, contended that copper scrap cannot be said to be "goods" and/or "manufactured goods within the meaning of the Central Excise Law and, hence, the goods were not exigible to any additional duty of customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Assistant Collector of Customs has released the goods on the petitioners executing a bond for payment of additional duty of customs under Entry No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the levy of additional duty of customs under section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the copper scrap imported by him in March 1980. The respondents however, contend that additional duty of customs is leviable on copper scrap and the same should be levied under Entry 26a (1) of the Central Excise Tariff as then in force and not under Entry 68 which is the residuary entry under the Central Excise Tariff.

(2.) THE first contention of the petitioner that copper scrap cannot be considered as "goods" and/or "manufactured goods" within the meaning of the Central Excise Law, and is therefore not exigible to excise and/or countervailing duty (additional duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975) is not now maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works and another v. Union of India) reported in A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 1211. The Supreme Court has said that scrap has to be considered as exigible to excise duty. It has also said that section 3 (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides a measure of the additional duty of customs which has to be equal to the excise duty on a like article if produced or manufactured in India, as defined in explanation to that section and has held that scrap is exigible to additional duty of customs under section 3 (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. This issue therefore, does not now survive.

(3.) THE only point which requires consideration is whether copper scrap falls under Central Excise Tariff Item 26-A as it stood at the time of the import of these goods, or whether it will be governed by the Residuary Entry 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. It is, by now, well established that if the goods which are imported fall within any specific entry of the Central Excise Tariff, they will not fall under the Residuary Entry 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.