TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by them in excess of the quantity shown in Bill of Entry No. 168 filed by them. In view of this we uphold the demand of Customs duty Rs. 5,379/-. 3.1The learned Counsel further mentioned that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has confiscated watch movements imported by them under Bill of Entry Nos. 167 and 168 on the ground that the conditions of the Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-1964 were violated inasmuch though the goods were bearing the trade mark "ROCHEES" of the appellants, the name of the manufacturing country and the manufacturer's name were not mentioned thereon. 3.2The learned Advocate submitted that the Rajasthan Watch Parts Manufacturers Association had taken up the matter with the Central Board of Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctively in view of the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in Surendra Kumar Jain v. CCE, 1990 (45) E.L.T. 127 (T) wherein it has been held that "procedural provisions of law can be given retrospective effect." Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Balumal Jamnadas Batra v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1558 (S.C.). He also mentioned that the Commissioner has relied upon the decision in CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) which is, in fact, in favour of the Appellants; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in Wood Craft case that amendments made to end the dispute raised by the manufacturers are necessarily clarificatory. He finally contended that the Board in the present matter had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han Watch Parts Manufacturers Association had taken up the matter of inapplicability of condition No. (v) in view of the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The Revenue has also not disputed the specific directions by the Board to Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur to allow clearance of consignment under Bond pending examination of issue by the Board and to finalise the assessment only after final decision regarding "the need for intention or otherwise of this Notification in the context of changed circumstances." Subsequently Notification No. 1/64 was amended by Notification No. 61/2000-Cus. which omitted condition No. (v). We find force in the contention of the Appellants that the amendment carried out in 2001 is in the nature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not completely assembled as they did not have hour wheels or washers and, therefore, could not be classified under Heading No. 91.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the impugned goods had been cleared only after proper examination by the Customs Authorities; that no samples were drawn from the goods; thus there was, at that stage, obviously no doubt in the mind of the Customs Officers who permitted clearance that the goods were correctly classified; that in such circumstances, when the Department is, subsequent to the clearance, seeking to question the classification, it had to discharge the burden to establish their classification; that this burden could not be discharged by merely recording statements, as class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
