TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Imported Acrylic Scrap: Tribunal Orders Duty Refund</h1> <h3>MYSORE INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC CORPORATION, KENGERI, BANGALORE Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, directing a refund of countervailing duty on imported Acrylic Sheets Crushed Scrap. It held that the goods ... - Issues:Levy of countervailing duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act on imported Acrylic Sheets Crushed Scrap; Interpretation of Notification No. 28 dated 1-3-1974 exempting certain plastic articles from levy; Correct categorization of imported goods under item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff; Validity and propriety of assessment under item 15A(1) by the Appellate Collector of Customs.Analysis:The case involves the levy of countervailing duty on a consignment of Acrylic Sheets Crushed Scrap imported under Bill of Entry No. 1812, dated 24-7-1976. The importer contested that the goods did not fall under Item 15(A) of the Central Excise Tariff for the levy of countervailing duty. Despite the importer's arguments, the goods were held to be covered by item 15A(1) of the CET for the purpose of levy of duty. The Appellate Collector upheld the original duty levy, leading to a refund claim by the importer. The dispute centered on the correct categorization of the imported goods under the relevant tariff items.The importer contended that the goods should be exempt from countervailing duty under Notification No. 28 dated 1-3-1974, which exempted certain plastic articles from levy under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The notification specified that the expression 'articles made of plastic' shall have the same meaning as in sub-item (2) of item 15A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The importer argued that the goods did not fit within the specified categories under item 15A(1) or 15A(2) of the First Schedule.The Appellate Collector, however, determined that the imported goods could be categorized as plastic materials, specifically referring to granules, flakes, or moulding powders. Despite some ambiguity in the Collector's decision, a partial refund of duty was directed based on the goods falling under the category of plastic material. The dispute before the Tribunal focused on whether the assessment under item 15A(1) was valid and appropriate, with the Revenue advocating for a different assessment under item 15A (general category).After considering the descriptions of goods under item 15A(l) and (2) and a relevant Public Notice, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention to restore the original assessment, as it would lead to a duty enhancement. The Tribunal agreed with the importer that the crushed scrap did not qualify as plastic materials under item 15A(1) due to the conversion process required. The Tribunal held that the categorization by the Appellate Collector was incorrect and unjustified, directing a refund of countervailing duty for the consignment.In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to justify tax or duty imposition under a statute, while taxpayers must establish exemption eligibility. The decision highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting tariff provisions and exemption notifications to determine the applicability of duties on imported goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
