GUEST KEEN WILLIAMS LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated facts of this case are as follows:

(2.) LEARNED advocate Shri Rajesh Chibber submits that additional duty of Customs is to be treated as duty of excise in view of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. Carborandum Universal (Larger Bench of 5 Member Bench) : 1988 (17) ECR 329 (T). It has been held in the said judgment that if the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Explanation thereto is to be given full effect to, the duty of excise for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India will be not only and merely the excise duty specified in the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, but that worked out after taking into account the rate of duty specified in the 1st Schedule and any exemption notification issued under Central Excise Rule 8(1) which has the effect of reducing the duty leviable in terms of the said 1st Schedule. Any other view which ignores the notification, if any, issued under Central Excise Rules 8(1), would lead to assessment of goods to additional duty of Customs which would not be equal to the duty of excise for the time being leviable on like goods produced or manufactured in India. Notification issued under Central Excise Rule 8(1) is 'law' owing to its source of power to the Statute and should not be ignored for arriving at measure of duty for the purpose of determining countervailing duty. Since the Statute provides the basis for the levy of excise duty even for calculating the duty under the Customs Tariff Act, it cannot be stated that Notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act alone would govern the issue and that notification issued under Central Excise Rule 8 should be ignored. Therefore, the benefit of Central Excise Notification 24/65 -CE was extended to the import involved in that case with reference to the liability for payment of additional customs duty.

(3.) FOR taking the aforesaid view, the Tribunal relied on Bombay High Court's judgment in 1982 ELT 64 : 1982 ECR 177D (Bom). Learned advocate, Shri Chibber stressing upon the aforesaid extracts of the headnotes from the said judgment points out that the Customs Tariff Act levying additional duty of Customs provides for the basis for levy of excise duty even for calculating the duty under the Customs Tariff Act. He, therefore, submits that additional duty of Customs levied at the time of import should be treated as duty of excise paid on similar goods manufactured or produced in the country. He, therefore, submits that there is no justification for the original authority to deny the appellants' benefit of Notification 206/63 -CE in the present case. This judgment of Larger Bench, he submits, has been followed in several other cases.