9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Duty was paid on 4-12-1982. On 28-12-1982 the appellants claimed re-assessment of the goods so far as the additional duty is concerned on the ground that the additional duty at the rate of 42% ad valorem under Tariff Item 15-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff was not leviable, but instead, such duty at the rate of 8% ad valorem under Item 68 C.E.T. was chargeable. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that Chlorinated rubber was a chemical derivative of natural rubber which is specifically classified under Central Excise Tariff Item 15-A(1) of C.E.T. and not classifiable under residuary item 68 of C.E.T. The appellants filed an appeal against that order before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification, Rule or Section can be corrected at any stage so long as the nature and substance of the claim does not change and the appellants do not ask for any higher amount of refund than originally claimed." In this case, the appellants claimed refund of part of the additional duty on the ground that the same was not chargeable at the rate of 42% ad valorem but was correctly chargeable at the rate of 8% ad valorem under Item 68 of the CET. Before the Collector (Appeals) as well as before this Tribunal, the appellants have pursued their claim for refund of additional duty. In the original refund application filed before the Assistant Collector also their claim was for refund of countervailing duty. The only difference is that originally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and Others v. Modi Rubber Limited & Others reported in [1986 (25) E.L.T. 849 (S.C.)], Hon'ble Supreme Court held:- "It is obvious that when a Notification granting exemption from duty of excise is issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power under Rule 8(1) simpliciter, without anything more, it must, by reason of the definition of "duty" contained in Rule 2 clause (v) which according to the well-recognised canons of construction would be projected in Rule 8(1) be read as granting exemption only in respect of duty of excise payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944." In paragraph 24 of their judgment in the case of B.S. Kamath and Company and another v. Union of India and Others reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 456, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms, Bombay v. M/s. Parekh Dye-Chem. Industries (P) Ltd., Bombay reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 119, and in Moti Ram Tola Ram v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (Vol. 11-Part I) E.C.C. T-8 =1987 (29) E.L.T., this Tribunal held that exemption from additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 cannot be claimed on the basis of exemption Notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the. Central Excise Rules, 1944. Following the aforesaid decisions, we also hold in the present case that appellants could not claim partial exemption of additional duty on the imported goods on the basis of Central Excise Notification No. 141/82-CE, dated 22-4-1982. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
