1990 (7) TMI 215 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Central Excise Notification No. 185/83 on the rate of additional duty of customs on Poly Vinyl Alcohol (PVA).
2. Request for adjournment based on pending appeal in the Supreme Court.
3. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act regarding the duty rate on imported PVA.
4. Argument on the application of Notification No. 185/83 and Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act.
5. Submission regarding the rate of duty leviable on imported PVA.
6. Request to refer the matter to a Larger Bench.
7. Opposing arguments on the binding nature of a previous Tribunal judgment.
8. Interpretation of Explanation (2) to Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act.
9. Determination of the applicable duty rate based on different rates specified.
10. Consideration of previous Tribunal judgment on the same issue.
11. Decision on the constitution of a Larger Bench.
12. Dismissal of all appeals based on the earlier Tribunal order.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute concerning the rate of additional duty of customs on Poly Vinyl Alcohol (PVA) and the applicability of Central Excise Notification No. 185/83. The appellants argued for a 10% rate based on the notification, while the Revenue contended for a higher statutory rate. The request for adjournment due to a pending Supreme Court appeal was denied, emphasizing the need to avoid delays. The Tribunal noted that similar issues were addressed in a previous case and proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

The appellants argued that the duty rate on imported PVA should align with the rate applicable to domestically manufactured PVA under Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act. They highlighted that no notification was issued under Section 3(3) regarding duty on raw materials. The advocate referred to a previous Tribunal judgment and requested the matter to be referred to a Larger Bench, challenging the interpretation of the word "leviable" in relation to duty rates.

The Revenue opposed, citing the binding nature of the previous Tribunal judgment and arguing for the application of the highest duty rate in cases of varying rates. The Tribunal considered both arguments and analyzed the previous judgment, which had different opinions from the members but ultimately concluded that the correct duty rate was not 10%. The Tribunal rejected the call for a Larger Bench, as the issues had been settled in the earlier case, and proceeded to dismiss all appeals based on the previous order, maintaining consistency in the interpretation of the duty rates on imported PVA.