TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e nine matters are similar and as such facts in appeal No. CD(SB)/168/83-B2 of M/s. Sunrise Engineering Works are narrated. M/s. Sunrise Engineering Works had imported bimetal bearings vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 986, dated 14th February, 1986 Ex. Ernst Schelner. The appellant had claimed reassessment of the goods viz. Bimetal Engine Bearings on the ground that these goods do not qualify to be treated as thin walled bearings according to specification No. 4774. The revenue was of the view that the goods imported in the trade parlance were reckoned as thin walled bearings. The appellant had taken the stand that in the trade the goods were known as bimetal bearings and Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff covered only thin walled bearings an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Collector and had rejected the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellants has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri T.V. Krishnamurthy, the learned consultant who has appeared on behalf of the appellants, has said that the appellants had imported bimetal bearings. Countervailing duty has been charged under Tariff Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff. He has referred to Tariff Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff and Tariff Item 68 and has further argued that the explanation in Tariff Item 68 was added after 28th February, 1980 viz. with effect from 1st March, 1980 and has further argued that the goods imported by the appellants are bimetal bearings and not thin walled bearings. He has argued that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of a fiscal statute. Appellants having opted for availing of the benefit of Notification No. 71 of 78 cannot avoid the consequences on grounds of equity. (3) 1987 (29) E.L.T. 620 Sociedade De Fomento and Others v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. In construing a taxing statute, - one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in. Nothing is to be implied. One can look fairly at the language used . (4) 1987 (28) E.L.T. 11 (Calcutta) Continental Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. Law is well settled that a taxing statute has to be construed literally. A tax cannot be imposed on legislative intent alone. St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer authorities for decision afresh after taking into consideration the ISI Specifications. On merits, Shri Gopinath, the learned senior departmental representative, has argued that the goods have been described as bimetal bearings and have been assessed as plain shaft bearings under Heading 84.63 and there is no dispute as to the levy of the basic Customs duty. The only dispute is to the levy of the countervailing duty and the issue to be decided is whether bimetal bearings can be considered as thin walled bearings. He has argued that addition of the explanation to Tariff Item 68 does not carry any value. It was added with effect from 1st March, 1980. Shri Gopinath has further argued that it is settled that when the definition of a particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 157.3 mm and has also referred to the comparative statement of walled thickness of bimetal bearings. Shri Gopinath referred to the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Cable Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1982 E.L.T. 467 where the Hon ble High Court had held that the ISI Specifications are relevant only for the quality of the goods but does not change the name of the goods. In para 19 in the said judgment, the Hon ble High Court had observed that reliance on the specifications issued by the Indian Standards Institution has also no relevance. Those specifications are only relevant for the quality of goods. Those specifications do not change the nature of the goods. He has also referred to the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecifications. Both the sides have cited various judgments which have been mentioned in the earlier paras. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1982 E.L.T. 467 has held that ISI Specifications are relevant only for the quality of the goods but do not change the name of the goods. In the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the tariff entry is to be interpreted as the same is understood by the traders. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Glass Industries Ltd. reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 473 has held that To our mind, there is a piece of evidence only as to the mann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
