TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e exempt from Customs duty (and not additional duty) become chargeable to Customs duty if at the time of their removal from warehouse the exemption from Customs duty be withdrawn and the question for decision in the other two appeals is whether goods in respect of which Bills of Entry were presented after issue of Notification 205-Cus/80 dated 16-10-80 by which exemption from Customs duty granted under Notification 66 Cus dated 15-3-79 as amended and which was to have remained in force till 31-3-81 was withdrawn and the period curtailed to 16-10-80, would be governed for purposes of Customs duty by the earlier Notification 66-Cus dated 16-3-79 or the superseding notification 205/Cus/80 dated 16-10-80. 3. With respect to Appeal No. 148/83....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10-1980 are reproduced below :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, No. 145-Customs dated the 27th July, 1980. The Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts polyvinyl chloride resins, falling within Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India, from the whole of the duty of Customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule. The Notification shall be in force upto and inclusive of the 31st March, 1981. " " In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perseded on 16-10-80 by notification 205/Cus/80 with the result that the period of exemption available under the notification 66/Cus/79 was curtailed from 31-3-81 to 16-10-80. He further submitted that as the goods were totally exempt from duty of Customs under notification issued under Section 25 of the Act, there was no question of rate of duty being applicable to imported goods as spelt out in Section 15 of the Act. His further submission was that any argument that total exemption is also nil rate of duty is a fallacy and could not be pressed in aid to invoke Section 15 where goods had entered the territorial waters of India at a time when they were fully exempt from duty of Customs. For this argument Shri Gokhale relied on a Full Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....old that import takes place when the goods enter territorial waters of India. He argued that when Section 12 of the Act talks of "except as otherwise provided in this Act" one cannot ignore Section 13 providing for duty of pilferred goods, 20, duty on re-importation of goods and Section 23 remission of duty on lost, destroyed or abandoned goods. Relying on 1983 E.L.T. 1688 (Del.) and 1984(17) E.L.T. 97(A.P.), he submitted that these two decisions of two High Courts dealt with the same notification and held that Central Government could curtail the period of exemption by notification 205/Cus/80 dated 16-10-80 and there was no question of promissory estoppel involved in such a case. He also submitted that there is no concept of basic Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question of applicability of Section 15 of the Act as to rate of duty applicable to imported goods being governed by this Section and his reliance for the purpose on Bombay High Court decision in Apar Private Ltd. case 1985 (22) E.L.T. 64(Bom), it might be stated that the Tribunal in M/s. Bayer (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1984 (16) E.L.T. 375 (Trib.) = 1986 (8) ECR 392 (Cegat) taking into consideration Supreme Court decision in Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works case 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.) holding additional duty mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 partakes of the same character as the Customs duty and is not countervailing duty, held that the decision of the Supreme Court would have to be pref....