HALONIX ELECTRIC LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Halonix Electric Ltd. being aggrieved with the Order -in -Original dated 14 -10 -1992 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi had filed the present appeal. The matter relates to the classification and applicability of exemption Notification No. 67/83 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1983 to the goods imported insofar as the levy of countervailing duty was concerned. In his Order -in -original the Collector of Customs, New Delhi had demanded duty of Rs. 9,58,810.18, disallowed the already granted refund of Rs. 1,67,227.15 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The appellants had filed stay application and the Tribunal had directed the appellants to pre -deposit the entire duty amount. The appellants challenged the stay order in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the High Court asked the appellants to deposit a Rs. 5,00,000/ - and to furnish the security of plant and machinery to the satisfaction of the Collector, Customs. High Court ordered that after the Collector Customs was satisfied that the security of the plant and machinery being adequate the appeal of the petitioner (appellant before us) will be decided on merits.

(2.) WE have heard Mrs. A. Singh, Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR is present for the respondent Revenue.

(3.) MRS . A. Singh, Advocate submitted that the goods imported by them were bulbs and they were correctly eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/83 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1983 as amended, under SI. No. 4 of the Table under that notification. It was her plea that the goods imported were covered by the term vacuum and gas filled bulbs not exceeding 60 watt. There was nil duty for such bulbs and, therefore no countervailing duty was chargeable thereon. As regards the limitation, she contended that there was no suppression on the part of the importers, the Revenue had taken different stand at different points of time and the matter had to be referred to the Collector Tariff Conference. She submitted that the whole of the demand was beyond the normal period of limitation. She also argued that there was no justification for imposing any penalty.