Skip to content


Indian Telephone Industries Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC715DTri(Delhi)
AppellantIndian Telephone Industries
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....plating salts" through the port of madras. the customs authorities assessed the goods free of duty under heading no.29.01/45(19) of the 1st schedule to the customs tariff act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the import tariff) read with customs notification no. 211/76 dated 2-8-76. later the customs authorities issued a notice to the appellants under section 28(1) of the customs act, 1962 demanding payment of duty amounting to rs. 18,907.65 on the ground that notification no. 211/76 did not apply to the goods in question and further that items 4 and 5 of the invoice were assessable to duty at 100% ad valorem under heading no. 71.05/11(1) of the import tariff. the appellants apparently did not respond to the notice and, therefore, the assistant collector confirmed the demand.....
Judgment:
1. This is a Revision Application to the Government of India which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has been transferred to the Tribunal for being disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before it.

2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the appellants imported a consignment of what is described in the suppliers invoice as Special Gold Alloy Plating Salts" through the Port of Madras. The Customs authorities assessed the goods free of duty under Heading No.29.01/45(19) of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Import Tariff) read with Customs Notification No. 211/76 dated 2-8-76. Later the Customs authorities issued a notice to the appellants under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 demanding payment of duty amounting to Rs. 18,907.65 on the ground that Notification No. 211/76 did not apply to the goods in question and further that Items 4 and 5 of the invoice were assessable to duty at 100% ad valorem under Heading No. 71.05/11(1) of the Import Tariff. The appellants apparently did not respond to the notice and, therefore, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand ex-parte. The appellants thereupon paid the amount demanded and went in appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs. The ground taken up in the appeal was that the goods covered under Items 4 and 5 of the invoice, namely "Puregold 402 'R' Make-up" and "Puregold 402 'R' Replenisher" were only special gold alloy plated salts classifiable under Item 28 of the Import Tariff in terms of Chapter note 2(vi) and leviable to duty at 60% ad valorem (basic duty) plus 15% ad valorem (auxiliary duty). They also took up the plea that there was some calculation error in arriving at the amount demanded. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal on the ground that in accordance with Note 4(b) of Chapter 71, the impugned goods were to be treated as an alloy of gold and in the absence of any evidence to prove the gold content of the goods their classification 'under Heading 71.05/11(1) was correct It is against this order of the Appellate Collector of Customs that the appellants have filed a Revision Application to the Central Government which, as earlier pointed out, stands transferred to this Tribunal for disposal.

3. For the Revision Application (Appeal) Shri K.S. Krishnamurthy, Dy.

Regional Manager of the Company, appearing on behalf of the appellants, reiterated the submissions in the memorandum of appeal. At the outset we must observe that the appellants have not shown sufficient care in prosecuting their appeal. Even though they had 2 stages to produce evidence in support of their contentions, they do not seem to have availed of the opportunity. Similarly, in the Revision Application (Appeal) dated 1st July 1981 it was stated that evidence would be forwarded shortly. However, no such evidence has apparently been sent and nothing is on record. Having said this we must also observe that the Revenue has not produced any evidence in support of its stand that Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the invoice were alloys of gold within the meaning of Note 4(b) of Chapter 71. From the invoice of the suppliers M/s Oxy Metal Industries, Switzerland it is seen that all the 6 items in the invoice including items 4 and 5 have been particularised under the head "Special Gold Alloy Plating Salts". In the absence of any evidence to the contrary there is no reason to reject the invoice description. The goods must, therefore, be held to be "plating salts", i.e. chemicals.

In terms of Note 2(vi) of Chapter 28 "Compounds organic or inorganic of precious metals, whether or not chemically defined,... whether or not mixed together" are to be classified under Chapter 28. Now Heading 28.01/58 contains several sub-headings and the present goods are not covered by any of the specific descriptions contained in the sub-heading 6. Consequently, the goods covered by Items 4 and 5 fall for classification under sub-heading (1)-(not elsewhere specified) of heading 28.01/58. In the result, we set aside the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, allow the appeal and direct that the goods be re-assessed to duty under sub-heading (1) of heading 28.01/58 and the consequential relief be granted to the party within 60 days of the date of communication of this order.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //