Skip to content


Premier Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1985)LC1105Tri(Chennai)
AppellantPremier Tyres Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs and Central
Excerpt:
.....under item 4 of the schedule to the notification permitting drawback had been amended with effect from 1.9.1974, excluding payment of drawback on tubes and flaps made of natural rubber. this would lead to an inference that prior to the date of the amendment, drawback was indeed payable.5. as desired by us, the departmental representative has checked the position and confirmed that duty is payable on such raw material as rubber, chemical and fillers used in the manufacture of tubes. further once the rate has been notified and some duty is payable on the raw materials, it is not open to the department to advance a plea that some other raw material--even it be the principal one--is not liable to duty. in this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and direct that the drawback admissible.....
Judgment:
1. Appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the order No. C27/DbK/46 & 47/75 dated 14.4.1976 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras and grant drawback claimed.

2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri A. Vijajaraghavan, Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following: 3. A claim of the appellants for payment of drawback on a quantity of flaps exported by them in March-May 1975 was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Drawback Department, Cochin noting that there was no duty incidence on the articles made of natural rubber-vide his order No. Section 29K/Suppl/l/75-Dbk. Cus. dated 4.10.1975. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras rejected an appeal against this order on the same issue. In the revision application to Government (the present appeal, transferred in terms of Section 131(B)(2) of the Act), the appellant has stressed that Drawback Rules provide for fixation of suitable rates for drawback by the Government-- after such a rate is fixed, it is not open to the Department to urge that duty is not payable on the raw material used in the manufacture of the exported goods. Further other than natural rubber, other "items on which duties are leviable are used in the manufacture of tubes or flaps. Therefore, it is not correct to say that all the raw materials used in the manufacture of exported goods are not dutiable.

4. It has also been stated that sub-serial No. 2002 under item 4 of the Schedule to the Notification permitting drawback had been amended with effect from 1.9.1974, excluding payment of drawback on tubes and flaps made of natural rubber. This would lead to an inference that prior to the date of the amendment, drawback was indeed payable.

5. As desired by us, the Departmental Representative has checked the position and confirmed that duty is payable on such raw material as rubber, chemical and fillers used in the manufacture of tubes. Further once the rate has been notified and some duty is payable on the raw materials, it is not open to the Department to advance a plea that some other raw material--even it be the principal one--is not liable to duty. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and direct that the drawback admissible under sub-serial No. 2002(4/5) be granted to the appellants.


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