LexM/S GOODYEAR INDIA LTD versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
M/S. GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.
v.'
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
JANUARY 27, 1997
B
[A.M. AHMADI, 0. AND S.P. BHARUCHA, J.]
Customs Tariff Act, 1975/Additional Duty Rules, 1976 :
S. 3(1), Explanation/Rule 2:-Exemption Notification No. 55 dated
C 1.3.1978-lmported nylon yam fabrics described as "Nylon Woven Dipped
Diffusion Resistance Fabric Goodyear Code E02NN"-Levy of additional
excise duty-Importer claiming the goods covered by the exemption notifica-
tion under the category "textured yam produced out of base yam"-Tribunal
holding that though the imported article fell under the said description
additional duty would be leviab/e at the rate specified in the notification for
D "other textured yam"--Held, additional duty leviab/e on the imported goods
is that specified against the description "textured yam produced out of base
yam" and not that specified against "other textured yam".
The appellant imported bulknylon yarn fabric, described in the bill
E of entry as "Nylon Woven Dipped Diffusion Resistance Fabric, Goodyear
Code E02NN" and cleared the same upon payment of duty as levied. Later,
on the basis of exemption Notification No. 55 dated l.3.1978 the appellant
claimed refund of additional excise duty, levied under s.3 of the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975. The case of the appellant was that the goods fell under
the description "textured yarn produced out of the base yarn" as
F enumerated at sl. No. 1, column (2) of the Table to the notification, and
as such the duty would be levied as prescribed in corresponding column
(3) of the said Table. Revenue rejected the claim and ultimately the
appellant filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control)
Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal Found that the goods fell under the
G description "textured produced out of base yarn", but held that duty was
payable at the rate specified in the notification in respect of "other textured
yarn". Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal.
~- .
It was contended for the appellants that the Tribunal having held
>-
that the imported goods were textured yarn produced out of base yarn, in
H requiring the appellants to pay additional duty at a rate specified in the
:·
556
•
MIS QOOD YEAR INDIA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
557
' ~
notification for "other textured yarn". For the Revenue it was contended A
that the goods were textured yarn in respect. of which the Notification
prescribed different rates of duty; and, therefore, in view of Explanation
to s. 3 (1) of the Tariff Act, the duty was rightly levied.
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order of the
Tribunal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The imported goods, as found by the Tribunal fall in the
category of "textured yarn produced out of base. yarn'', and, therefore, the
additional excise duty that is leviable is that specified against the descrip-
B
tion in the Table of the Notification No. 55178 and they cannot be made C
liable to additional duty at the rate specified for "other textured.yarn", that .
is to say, for textured yarn that does not fulfil the description of beiµ{
produced out of base yarn. [562-D-E]
/
/
/
1.2. Explanation to s.3 (1) of the Customs Tariff Actllefines the
expression "the excise duty for the time being leviable on a" like article if D
produced or manufactured in India. It means the excise duty for the time
being in force which would be leviable on a like article produced or
manufactured in India. If a like article is not produced or manufactured
in India, the expression means the excise duty which would be leviable on
the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs; .E
and where such excise duty is at different rates, the expression means the
highest rate of duty. [567-E-FJ
Thennax P1ivate Ltd. v. Collector of Cu$toms (Bombay) New Customs
House, [1992] 4 SCC 440, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Ci~il Appeal No. 3632 of
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.86 of the Customs Excise
F
and Gold (Control~Appellate Trihunal, New Delhi in A. No. 1333/80-D) G
(Order No. 233/86-D).
S. Ganesh, Amit Bansal for M/s . .TBD & Co. for the Appellant.
M.S. Usgaonkar, Additional Solicitor General, VK Verma, S.D.
Sharma, Hemant Sharma for the Respondent.
H
'
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
\
[1997] 1 S.C.R.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
c
D
E
F
G
BHARUCHA, J. The appeal arises upon a judgment delivered by the
Customs, ExExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.