9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd decided that the Notification cannot be applied, and the statutory rate of duty which is higher than the concessional rate should be applied. When the matters came up Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Advocate for the appellants requested for an adjournment of the matters on the ground that an appeal involving an identical point was pending decision in the Supreme Court who ordered to post the appeal in March 1991. The learned Advocate submitted that in all these matters duty as levied by Customs was paid and refund applications are pending. Therefore, there is no prejudice to Revenue if the adjournment is granted. Shri Jayant Bhushan submitted that multiplicity of the appeals should be avoided and an adjournment of this matter would ensu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard together. That the Revenue is not prejudiced cannot also be a ground for adjournment. If it is accepted that the pendency of an issue before the Supreme Court (not relating to the appeals before the Tribunal) is a ground for sine die adjournment, the work of this Tribunal shall come to a standstill and the consequent effects on the lower quasi-judicial bodies in Customs and Excise Departments who do then begin adjourning matters pending before the Tribunal would lead to an undesirable situation. It is not as if the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already heard the matter and orders are pending. It is not that the Court has granted a stay. We, therefore, rejected the request of the learned Advocate and proceeded to hear the matter on merits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries P. Ltd.) and submitted that this judgment also considered a wrong issue namely the applicability of the Notification. He argued that the word "leviable" would mean "levied" and in terms of the explanation of Section 3 there is only one rate of duty leviable in India and that is 10% and this rate should be levied as Additional Duty of Customs in the instant matters. Therefore, the learned Advocate pleaded that the earlier judgment should not be followed and as this Bench also consists of three Members, the Matter may be referred to a Larger Bench. 7. Shri Jayaraman, the learned SDR opposed the arguments and submitted that the ratio of the Tribunal's judgment in Parekh Dye-chem Industries(P) Ltd. (supra) is quite clear. This judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act. Therefore, it is not as if the argument advanced by Shri Jayant Bhushan now before was not advanced and considered in the Tribunal's judgment. In the said judgment there were three different orders by the three different learned Members. All the three Members agreed that the correct rate of duty leviable was not 10%. Shri Sankaran, the learned Member (Technical) held that the benefit of Notification No. 185/83 was erroneously extended to the imported consignments in the order of the Collector (Appeals). Shri Gowri Shanker Murthy, the learned Member (Judicial) held that additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is the duty leviable in terms of the First Schedule to the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
