Double levy on processed aluminium foils rejected where duty had already been paid under the same tariff head.

Etched aluminium foils already subjected to countervailing duty under Item 27(c) could not be charged again under the same tariff head merely because etching was carried out. The Tribunal treated Item 27(c) as creating a single charging entry for foils and rejected the contention that processing alone generated a fresh levy in the absence of a distinct statutory provision for the processed form. A second duty demand on the same goods under the same head was therefore unauthorised, and the levy on the etched foils was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether etched aluminium foils, on which countervailing duty had already been paid under Item 27(c), could again be subjected to duty under the same item on the footing that etching brought about a new product or attracted a fresh levy.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the tariff provided only one entry for foils under Item 27(c), and the descriptive words within the item did not create a separate charge every time the foil underwent processing such as etching. Once duty had already been paid under the same head, a second levy of the same duty on the same goods under the same item was not authorised. The view that etching changed the product so as to justify a fresh levy was rejected for purposes of the present assessment.

Conclusion: The additional duty demand under Item 27(c) was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned levy of duty on the etched foils was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty cannot be levied again under the same tariff head on goods already subjected to duty under that very head merely because they have undergone processing, unless the statute creates a distinct charging provision for the processed form.

---