https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166874 Imported aluminium rods were held liable to countervailing duty under Section 2-A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 because the decisive inquiry is whether the imported goods answer the description of a like article chargeable to excise duty in India. Their import tariff classification did not control the additional duty question. Although the rods fell under Item 70(1) for import purposes, they corresponded to aluminium under Item 27 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The distinction between import tariff items was treated as irrelevant to the notional excise-based levy, so the countervailing duty was upheld and the challenge failed. en-us Mon, 29 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:44:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166874 Imported aluminium rods were held liable to countervailing duty under Section 2-A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 because the decisive inquiry is whether the imported goods answer the description of a like article chargeable to excise duty in India. Their import tariff classification did not control the additional duty question. Although the rods fell under Item 70(1) for import purposes, they corresponded to aluminium under Item 27 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The distinction between import tariff items was treated as irrelevant to the notional excise-based levy, so the countervailing duty was upheld and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166874