1982 (11) TMI 171 - HC - Central Excise

Court Upholds Countervailing Duty on Imported Aluminium Rods

The Court upheld the Government's decision to impose countervailing duty on the appellant's imported aluminium rods, as they fell under relevant ... - Issues:Interpretation of countervailing duty under the Tariff Act and the Excise Act.Analysis:The appellant, a public limited company importing aluminium rods, contested the imposition of countervailing duty by Customs authorities under Item 70(1) of the Tariff Act and Item 27 of the Excise Act. The Appellate Collector allowed the appeal for refund, but the Government set aside this decision. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the Government's order.The single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that goods under Item 70(1) of the Tariff Act should not attract countervailing duty, as they are subject to 30% ad valorem duty. The respondent contended that countervailing duty applies to items under Item 70(1) as per Sec. 2-A of the Tariff Act, irrespective of the duty rate.The Court examined relevant provisions of the Tariff Act and the Excise Act. It noted that countervailing duty, as per Sec. 2-A, is imposed on imported articles in addition to customs duty. The Court found that the appellant's goods fell under Item 70(1) of the Tariff Act and Item 27 of the Excise Act, justifying the levy of countervailing duty. It emphasized that the distinction between items under the Tariff Act is irrelevant for excise duty purposes.The Court agreed with the single Judge that the focus should be on whether the imported article is liable to duty under the Excise Act. It clarified that customs duty and excise duty operate under distinct statutes. The Court upheld the Government's decision to impose countervailing duty, as the imported goods met the definition of 'aluminium' under Item 27 of the Excise Act.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the levy of countervailing duty on the appellant's imported goods. No costs were awarded in the matter.