TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (1) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tem No. 967/33 BE Cash No. 438, dated 4.2.1981; and (iii) IGM/Item No. 1234/19 BE Cash No. 3795, dated 30.1.1981. The materials were held up by the assessing officers who disputed about the thickness of aluminium foils covered by the first consignment. The clearing agents had, therefore, to clear the consignments on payment of full duty. The appellants could not execute a bond needed for assessment under the Customs Notification 204/205-Cus., dated 3.10.1979. When the appellants applied for re-assessment and consequential relief, the Assistant Collector rejected the same on the ground that the importers had not executed a bond as required by the said notification. On appeal, under the impugned order, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bomb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cines; The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the execution of the bond contemplated under clause (d) of the notification would come into play only when a lesser duty was paid. But in this case, the appellants had, in fact, paid duty at a higher rate and hence the necessity for execution of a bond would not arise. The rejection of the prayer for re-assessment by the Assistant Collector would not be thus justified. The Appellate Collector has rejected the appeal on the ground that the notification contemplated merely aluminium foil laminated with polyethylene film. In other words, the benefit of Notification 205/79-Cus. was denied on the ground that there was also lacquer on the other side of the aluminium foil. The Ld. Counsel su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellants have to establish that the aluminium foil contained more than 97% of aluminium. He referred to us 1987 (29) E.L.T. 428 (Johnson & Johnson v. Collector of Customs, Bombay). In that decision, the question arose on the interpretation of Notification No. 173/77-Cus., dated 8.8.1977 and Notification 67/79-Cus., dated 15.3.1979. It was contended that the aluminium content should not have been calculated with reference to the whole product because the resin and paper which formed part of the product were necessary materials to aluminium foil. The Tribunal held in paragraph 14 as follows :- "Notification 173 refers to aluminium manufactures containing more than 97% of aluminium. This word could have only one meaning, namely,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DGTD. It is established that the appellants have actually produced such certificate and hence there is compliance with this portion of notification also. 7. Under the impugned order, relief was denied to the appellants on the ground that the imported aluminium foil was not only laminated with polyethylene film on one side but also had lacquering on the other side. We notice that the colourless lacquer Outside is suitable for subsequent printing. The low density polyethylene coating inside the foil is essential for the packing, security and pilfer proofing of the drugs and medicines. The Drug (Control) Act stipulates that the name of the product, batch No., date of manufacture, date of expiry and other details had to be furnished to the c....