LexM/S. RAJA RADIO CO., BOMBAY versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t MIS. RAJA RADIO CO., BOMBAY A •l. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY MAY 2, 1995 [R.M. SAHAI, S.B. MAJMUDAR AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] B Customs Tariff Ac~ 1975: ~""' Excise-import of Class E high temperature resisting materiaf-Paper ... c with plastic coatings and electrical insulating paper-Levy of duty-Held leviable under heading 39.01/06 and not under 48.01/21-Levy of counter vailing duty under Tariff Item 68 held proper. The appellant-Company imported a consignment of Class E and other high temperature resisting material comprising of either a sheet of D temperature resisting paper (popularly known as presspahn) which Is coated on one side with a thin layer of polyester Olm or two layers of ;.. presspahn in which a polyester Olm is inserted for rigidity and added Insulation. The polyester film so used enhances the lnsnlating property of the presspahn and serves the same basic function of insulation as is E Imparted by the presspahn. These goods are used to provide insulation against the high temperature generated in the coils of electric motors. the appellant paid duty on these goods under Heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act with Counter-vailing duty under Tariff Item 17 (2) of Central Excise Tariff but later claimed refund on the ground that these goods were ,.I., dutiable under Heading 48.01/21 of Customs Tariff Act read with notifica· F lion No. 37-Customs dated 1.3.1978. The claim was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on the ground that E-class paper coated with plastic is considered as plastic material assessable under Heading 39.01/06. The Collector (Appeals) held that the weight of imported material being far in excess of 180 grams per sq. mt it was paper board to which the notification G was not applicable. On further appeal .the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the plastic component being more ... active in the case of E class insulating materials the goods were to be treated as resin or plastic material covered by Entry 39. As regards the counter-vailing duty the Tribunal held that it was leviable under Item 68 of the Customs Tariff. H 1037 1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R. A Against the decision of the Tribunal both the assessee and the Revenue preferred appeals before this Court. <· Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The order of the Tribunal is upheld but for different B reasons. In view of Rule I of the Rules for interpretation of the Schedule, as it stood, the headings in Chapters 39 and 48 have to be determined accord- ing to notes. They cannot be ignore. There is nothing either in the notes or in the heading of 39.01/06 to suggest that it applies to paper coated with plastic. In fact the word such as to amplify the words 'artificial resin' in the c heading has not been used before artificial plastic material. Read on its own probably it would have been difficult to include paper laminated with polyester lilm. But when the notes in Chapter 48 dealing with paper and paper board are examined, then the entire picture changes. The entry under heading 48.01/21 during relevant period was very wide. It included com- D posite paper and impregnated or coated paper. When the notification No. 37 exempted electrical insulating paper falling under Chapter 48 then it obviously meant that such material fell under the entry. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the notes to Chapter 48 mentioned that the Chapter did not cover certain items, one of them being mentioned at (e). The effect of . note(e) was two-fold, one that it excluded such papers which were coated E with plastic or laminated with polyester lilm from heading 48 and other that they were covered in Chapter 39. Therefore, paper of the type imported by the appellant which had plastic coating and were electrical insulating paper was properly subjected to duty under 39.01/06. (1043-D, E, 1044-B-D, Fl F 2. Revenue has failed to demonstrate that the order levying counter- vailing duty under Tariff Item 68 suffers from any error of law. (1045-B] Sumise Electric Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Born- bay, (1983) 13 ELT 1038 and [1983) 14 ELT 2465 and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Wash Udyog Sawa11twadi, (1987) 31 ELT 73, referred to. G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 32-39 of 1986 Etc. • From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.85 of the Central Customs Act, 1962 of the Customs Excise a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.