9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his court. The reference to facts is, therefore, shortly made. 2. In January, 1974 the petitioners imported 50 tons of nylon 6 (polyamide) chips. On 2nd February, 1974 the Chemical Examiner certified that what had been imported was polyamide synthetic resin in the form of chips. On 1st March, 1974 the petitioners wrote to the Collector of Customs and claimed exemption from countervailing duty upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r X of the Central Excise Rules was followed. 5. On 9th April, 1974 the Collector of Customs wrote to the petitioners that the polyamide chips were assessable to duty under customs tariff item 82 (3). In regard to the exemption notification the Collector stated that it did not give unconditional exemption. Accordingly, he assessed countervailing duty upon the polyamide chips on the basis of item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed. This petition seeks to quash the order in revision. 8. As far as this court is concerned, by reason of the Division Bench judgment in Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd. v. Union of India 1982 E.L.T. 917, the polyamide chips must be classified under item 82(3). 9. Being so classifiable, the applicable item in regard to excise would be item 15A. The very same exemption notification was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the imported polyamide chips would be used in the manufacture of nylon yarn. This is not disputed by the respondents. The conditions of the exemption notification must, therefore, be held to have been satisfied. The polyamide chips imported by the petitioners are, therefore, not liable to countervailing duty. 11. The order of the 1st respondent dated 17th May, 1978 is quashed and set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
