1996 (2) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st the order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court summarily rejecting the appellant's writ petition upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 2.The appellants imported partially oriented yarn (POY). They claimed for the purposes of countervailing duty (additional duty) the benefit of an exemption notification dated 28th February, 1982, issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that POY was assessable to countervailing duty and excise duty at the final denierage stage, that is to say, after the POY had been texturised. 3.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no warrant for levying countervailing duty upon imported goods at a stage they would reach subsequent to their import after undergoing a process. They had to be subjected to duty in the stat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act so mandates. The POY imported by the appellants fell in the slot of 100 deniers and above but not above 750 deniers. It was, therefore, liable to that rate of countervailing duty as was provided for in the said clause (iv) of the exemption notification. There was no warrant for the levy of countervailing duty as provided for in the said clause (iii) upon the b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X