Skip to content


Nava Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC1322DTri(Delhi)
AppellantNava Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....cvd as it was not chargeable during the relevant period under item 68-cet. as far as the levy of customs duty on the indicator paper is concerned, we do not propose to involve ourselves with the classification because we find that the importer agitated levy of countervailing duty only and the appellate collector of customs has allowed its appeal. if we are to allow the importer to raise the classification dispute, we shall be adjudicating an issue which was not even raised even before the assistant collector.therefore, the importer fails on the second issue. since we are accepting the importer's contention in respect of classification of microscopic stain, the appeal is partly allowed with direction to the customs authorities to allow consequential relief, latest within four months of.....
Judgment:
1. M/s Nava Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Importer) filed a revision application under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Central Government against the Order dated 13th October, 1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs in Bombay (Order No. S/49/203/77R). The R.A. has been transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Act as Appeal and is being accordingly disposed of as such.

2. The Importer claimed re-assessment of a part of the consignment vide BE Cash Memo 1715/13th of September, 1976. The re-assessment was in respect of two Items, one being microscopic stain and the other indicator paper (Litmus Paper). The importer sought re-assessment of both the items as laboratory chemicals under Sub-item 19 of Tariff Item No. 29.01/45 of CTA 75 without levy of additional duty under Item 14D of the CET. These items were assessed to duty by the Customs House under Item 32.04(12) of CTA 75 and CVD was also levied under Item 14D of CET and under Item 48.01/21(1) of CTA 75 with additional duty under Item 17(2) of the CET respectively. The refund claim came to be rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay vide Order dated 19th of October, 1976 (Order No. S/6-C/2672/76R).

3. Before the Collector of Customs (Appeal), Bombay, the importer partly succeeded inasmuch as levy of CVD in relation to indicator paper was lifted.

4. Before us for the appellant, Shri N.C. Sogani, Consultant appeared and strenuously argued that microscopic stain by no stretch of imagination can be held to be assessable as colouring matter and not laboratory chemical. He referred to us the sub-heading 19 of Tariff Item No. 29.01/45 which mentions, 'laboratory chemicals, organic and inorganic' as defined in Note 2 to the Chapter 29. Note 2 reads as follows :- "In addition to those specified in Note 1 above, this Chapter also covers all chemicals, organic, or inorganic, whether or not chemically defined, imported in packings not exceeding 1/2 kilogram or 1/2 litre and which can be identified with reference to their purity, marking or other features to show them to be meant for use solely as laboratory chemicals." 5. For the Revenue, Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, JDR, very vehemently defended the Appellate Collector's Order. After hearing the parties on the issue of classification in respect of the microscopic stain, we entertain no doubt that the importer's claim is correct, and that the import is classifiable and assessable under Sub-item 19 of Item 29.04/45 of CTA 75, without CVD as it was not chargeable during the relevant period under Item 68-CET. As far as the levy of customs duty on the indicator paper is concerned, we do not propose to involve ourselves with the classification because we find that the importer agitated levy of countervailing duty only and the Appellate Collector of Customs has allowed its appeal. If we are to allow the importer to raise the classification dispute, we shall be adjudicating an issue which was not even raised even before the Assistant Collector.

Therefore, the importer fails on the second issue. Since we are accepting the importer's contention in respect of classification of microscopic stain, the appeal is partly allowed with direction to the Customs authorities to allow consequential relief, latest within four months of the receipt of this Order.


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