9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d their been manufactured in India would have attracted excise duty under Item 68 CET. All the 3 lots have been imported after 1-3-1979. All of them have therefore been assessed to c.v. duty corresponding to Item 68 CET. That levy of c.v. duty is being disputed by the appellants. Since the questions involved are entirely one of interpretation of law, all the appeals are disposed of by this single order. Originally a common date for hearing all of them simultaneously was given to different parties involved. However, M/s. Dai-ichi Karkaria were heard on that date. The other two appellants sought postponement and those were granted. They sought postponement because they were trying to collect evidence that goods are of a type like of which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustry they argued that it is wrong to consider that non-existent Indian industry requires protection. Therefore levy of c.v. duty of goods the like of which are not manufactured in India is according to them bad in law and outside the scheme of the Act as outlined in the memorandum of objects. The memorandum of objects could be termed as aid for interpretation only if there is any ambiguity in the wording of clear provisions of the Act as passed by the Parliament. If there is no ambiguity the question of turning to the memorandum of objects does not arise. In this case I am of the opinion that there is no ambiguity or matter of doubt in the clear provisions of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Explanation to sub-section (1) the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t manufactured in India that presumptive approach of the Explanation is hardly necessary. I am afraid, I do not accept either contention of the appellant. I have not accepted nor is it my jurisdiction to decide that the levy is ultra vires. Once that is brushed aside from my consideration what remains to see is only the clarity of the Explanation and the need thereof as explained by the Tariff Commission. All that makes perfectly a good scheme. It would indeed be a nice piece of legislation. The appellants are overlooking by challenging it in this fashion their correct approach would in those circumstances be to plead before the Government that a need for exemption notification exists. 5. The appellants also invited my attention to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by articles 301 and 303 were not to be contradicted. There is nothing corresponding to articles 301 and 303 which would run contrary to the Union's jurisdiction to levy countervailing duties which arise from Entry 84 in the Ist list to 7th Schedule. I am afraid I do not agree with the appellants that the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment in any way supports their stand that the levy of c.v. duty corresponding to Item 68 CET is wrong. 6. Lastly the appellants referred to the wording of the said Explanation in section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to make this order a self-contained one I will reproduce the said Explanation. It reads as under: "In this section, the expression "the excise duty for the time being leviable on a li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the Explanation itself all these years is wrong. (b) Assuming without admitting that the Explanation is correctly interpreted the appellants still say that interpretation might be good enough for any other entry in the Tariff but is not good enough for Item 68. The Explanation contemplates the excise duty that would be leviable on "the class or description of articles" to which the imported articles belong. According to the appellants the wording 'class or description of articles' is far too wide and sweeping. It is alright to consider as belonging to 'a class or description of articles' things which are precisely defined within a narrow compass. It cannot be said, according to the appellants that Item 68 of CET represents class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition section in the Customs Tariff Act the words "description of articles" should have a different meaning at different places in the said Act the different places being the Explanation and column 2 of the Tariff Schedule. I am afraid I do not accept that Item 68 is a hotch-potch either. Whoseover is familiar with the intricaties of drafting any Tariff Schedule whatsoever whether it is a Railways Rates Tariff or a Sales Tax Tariff or an Excise Tariff is fully familiar with the need to insert somewhere or even as sub-section of the different section of N.O.S. or N.E.S. class. That is nothing but typically legal jargon the need for which is recognised in every single learned treatise on interpretation of statutes. To say that such a wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
