TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Union Carbide India Limited (hereinafter called the appellants ) had imported Methyl Isocyanate (hereinafter referred to as the said product ) for the manufacture of Carbaryl after 1st March, 1979 and it was assessed to countervailing duty corresponding to Item 68, C.E.T. That levy of c.v. duty is being disputed by the appellants. 3. As per the case of the appellants, the said product was not manufactured in India at the relevant time. Any product similar to the said product or which could be used as a substitute for the said product in the manufacture of Carbaryl, was also not manufactured in India and it is a class of its own and it could not attract any excise tariff and, therefore, no c.v. duty was payable on the said product. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le under Section 3 of the said Act on the said product i.e. Methyl Isocyanate. The learned counsel further submitted that the said product does not belong to any class or description of articles, which attracts Central Excise duty under any of the Tariff Items 1 to 67 of the Central Excise Tariff. No additional duty can ever be payable on any article under Section 3 of the said Act by applying the duty payable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff even when the said article or a like article is not manufactured in India as the said item 68 is residuary item and does not describe or apply to a class of articles nor is it a description of any goods and/or articles or class of goods and/or articles. According to the learned counsel, an ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be termed as aid for interpretation only if there is any ambiguity in the wording of the clear provisions of the Act as passed by the Parliament. If there is no ambiguity the question of turning to the memorandum of objects does not arise. According to the learned departmental representative, there is no ambiguity or matter of doubt in the clear provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay has correctly appreciated the facts and law while disposing of the appeal and it requires no interference. 9. The entire case is based upon the interpretation of the provisions of Section 3, sub-section (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the explanation appended thereto, which reads as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly if the said article or the like article is produced or manufactured in India is not tenable. It is very difficult if not impossible, to make an enquiry every time when the imports take place whether the like goods are manufactured in India or not. The explanation was inserted to Section 3(1) so that the need to find whether like goods are manufactured in India need not arise and the levy of c.v. duty in those circumstances need not be deemed illegal. Taxing Statute should be strictly interpreted. There is no ambiguity about the interpretation of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the explanation appended thereto. If there is no ambiguity regarding the provision of any Section contained in the Taxing Statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
