9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-C.E., dated 21-4-1973 as amended by Notification No. 32/81-C.E., dated 1-3-1981. The Assistant Collector rejected their claim on the ground that this notification is applicable only to indigenous products/goods. Further, the goods under reference had already been charged CVD in terms of Notification No. 238/78-Cus., dated 22-12-1978. 3. The Collector (Appeals) also rejected their refund claim on the same grounds. Hence the appeal. 4. It was their submission that it has already been held in the case of Kailash Paints & Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 359 (Tribunal) that zinc ash imported by the appellants arisen during zinc smelting operations as evident from certificate of supplier and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise in a zinc smelting operation. While there is no such condition under the customs Notification No. 238/78-Cus., dated 22-12-1978, the appellants had, at the time of filing of Bill of Entry for clearance of the imported goods claimed the benefit of the later and were granted the same. They had not produced at that time any evidence to the effect that zinc ash in question has arisen during zinc smelting operation. Therefore, the goods had been rightly assessed to duty giving the benefit of Notification No. 238/78-Cus. only. Their subsequent refund claim is a post importation development and raises questions about the certificates said to have been produced subsequently at the refund stage. 10. Neither the copy of the bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have not substantiated their claim, either at the first appellate or at the second appellate stage by production of the relevant documents. If they had sent the originals before the A.C. (Refunds) and the same were received by the Department, they should have been, in the normal course, in the Department's case records but the Collector (Appeals) did not find them and in any case, there is nothing to show that the appellants had asked for certified copies for the purpose of producing the same before the Tribunal. 14. In view of these facts, a question would however still arise as to whether the matter could be remanded in these circumstances. 15. However, there is one more point to be considered before a decision could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
