9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (This we shall call the basic customs duty). The relevant entry in the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act is under Heading No. 44.01 which includes "wood and timber". 3. The Government had, however, issued a notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act exempting timber imported from certain countries of which Burma is one. The result was that the basic customs duty payable by the assessee in respect of its imports - we shall call this the effective basic duty - was nil. The assessee, however, was liable to pay an additional duty of customs in respect of its imports. This additional duty may be referred to as the auxiliary duty of customs. The levy of this duty is governed by the terms of Notification No. 265, dated 8-12-1982 and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the above notification and that it should have paid an auxiliary duty of only 30% and not 40%. It therefore, applied to the respondent for a refund of the excess duty allegedly paid by it. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. However, on appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that the assessee was entitled to the refund claimed and this order has also been confirmed by the Central Excise and Gold Control (Appellate) Tribunal (CEGAT). The Collector of Customs has preferred these appeals. 5. The order of the Tribunal in the appeals preferred by the present respondent was a very short order in which the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the case of M/s. Indian Plywood Company Ltd., Bombay. We have been taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds are imported from other countries, the notification does not apply and a basic duty of 60% would be leviable under the entry in the First Schedule. The result, therefore, is that when we read the rates specified in the First Schedule along with the relevant notifications in respect of a particular article, namely, timber, we find that the effective basic duty is leviable on it at two rates and this differentiation in rates is attributable to the country of origin in regard to the import. Hence the explanation squarely comes into operation and the assessee will have to pay auxiliary duty by reference to the higher of the two rates of the effective basic duty, namely, 60%. 8. The contention on behalf of the respondent - and this is also t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sic duty set out in the Schedule. 9. Shri Ramachandran contended that the construction sought to be placed by us would lead to this anomaly that a person will have to pay an auxiliary duty even though the effective basic duty is nil. This argument is without force for two reasons. In the first place that is the direct result of the explanation and, therefore, if that is the clear intention of the statutory instrument, the anomaly cannot be helped. The second and perhaps more appropriate answer to Shri Ramachandran's contention is that the explanation is based on good reason. It will be seen that in a case of this type as well as in cases governed by more than one notification, which make a distinction in the rate of duty based on the count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
