LexAIDEK TOURISM SERVICES PVT. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 295 AIDEK TOURISM SERVICES PVT. LTD. A v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI (Civil Appeal No. 2616 of 2001) MARCH 19, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] B Customs Tariff Act, 1975: s.3(1) - Concessional rate of C countervailing duty in terms of Notification no.64193-CE - Eligibility for - Import of Honda accord cars manufactured abroad for the purpose of assessee's business of tourism which operates taxis to ferry the tourists from one place to D another - Claim for concessional rate of CVD in terms of said Notification - Held: The importer like the assessee is deemed to be manufacturer of the said saloon car and entitled to concessional rate of countervailing duty. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The proviso to Notification no.64193-CE gives exemption of duty of 10% CVD in respect of particular goods, namely, saloon cars, if such saloon cars are used solely as taxis. [Para 7] [301-E] 2. Section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 deals with levy of additional duty, i.e. CVD, which is normally equal to the excise duty that is payable on a like article, E F if produced or manufactured in India. The explanation G to Section 3 has two limbs. The first limb clarifies that the duty chargeable under Section 3(1) would be the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article 295 H 296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A if produced or manufactured in India. The condition precedent for levy of additional duty thus contemplated by the explanation is that the article is produced or manufactured in India. The second limb to the explanation deals with the situation where 'a like B article is not so produced or manufactured'. The use of the word 'so' implies that the production or manufacture referred to in the second limb is relatable to the use of that expression in the first limb which is of a like article being produced or manufactured in C India. The words 'if produced or manufactured in India' do not mean that the like article should be actually produced or manufactured in India. As per the explanation if an imported article is one which has 0 been manufactured or produced, then it must be presumed, for the purpose of Section 3(1 ), that such an article can likewise be manufactured or produced in India. For the purpose of attracting additional duty under Section 3 on the import of a manufactured or E produced article, the actual manufacture or production of a like article in India is not necessary. For quantification of additional duty in such a case, it has to be imagined that the article imported had been manufactured or produced in India and then to see F what amount of excise duty was leviable thereon. - The levy under Section 3 of the Tariff Act is in the nature of a countervailing duty and is with a view to levy additional duty on an import to counter balance the excise duty payable on a like article indigenously G manufactured. It is now settled that the rate of duty would be only that which an Indian manufacturer would pay under the Excise Act on a like Article. Therefore, the importer would be entitled to payment of concessional/reduced or nil rate of countervailing duty H if any notification is issued providing exemption/ AIDEK TOURISM SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 297 CUSTOMS, N. DELHI remission of excise duty for a like article if produced/ A manufactured in India. [Paras 14, 15] [305-C; 308-B-H; ; 309-A; 310-E-F] Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House (1992) 4 SCC 440: 1992 B (3) SCR 943; Hyderabad Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 15: 1999 (3) SCR 471 - relied on. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J.K. Synthetics c (2000) 10 SCC 393; Motiram Tolaram v. Union of India CCE v. J.K. Synthetics(1999) 6 SCC 375: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 82; Lohia Sheet Products v. Commr. Of Customs (2008) 11 SCC 510: 2008 (J) SCR 948; Collector of Customs (Preventive) v. Malwa Industries Ltd. (2009) 12 D SCC 735: 2009 (2) SCR120; Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 236:2010 (13) SCR 820 - referred to. Case Law Reference E 1999 (3) SCR 471 relied on Para 10 (2000) 1 o sec 393 referred to. Para 10 1992 (3) SCR 943 relied on Para 10 F 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 82 referred to. Para 15 2008 (3) SCR 948 referred to. Para 15 2009 (2) SCR 120 referred to. Para 15 G 2010 (13) SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.