TONY ELECTRONICS LTD Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants filed this appeal against the order -in -appeal passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that appellants were sent ten pieces of Calender Rolls for repairs and reconditioning out of India as the same repairs cannot be undertaken in India. The said repair rolls were reimported into India. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 204/76 -Cus. dated 2.8.1976 for basic customs duty. The appellants claimed that the additional duty of customs as NIL on the ground that the same is not chargeable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The plea of the appellants in respect of additional excise duty of customs was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. The appellants filed appeal and the same was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Calender rolls were originally imported on payment of customs duty including the additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. He submits that the goods were sent for repair and reconditioning and were reimported into India and when the Revenue authorities admitted that these are repaired goods and granted exemption under Notification No. 204/76 -Cus., dated 2.8.1976 from the Basic customs duty, therefore, the additional duty in terms of Section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act is not leviable. He, therefore submits that the repair of reconditioning goods cannot be included in the expression "produce" or "manufacture". He further submits that as the additional duty of customs is leviable only on produced or manufactured goods and not on repaired and reconditioned goods. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Im Kemex India Ltd. reported and in the case of Verma Sports Industries v. Collector of Customs . He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.