1984 (4) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d law are involved, both the appeals were heard together. In Appeal No. 963/81, appellants imported Phenyl Alpha Napthylamine during 1974 under Bill of Entry No. 976/84, dated 4-11-1974 and the consignment was released under ex-bond Bill of Entry Cash No. 1108 and 1109, dated 10-1-1978. The Customs authorities assessed the goods under Item No. 28 I.C.T. charging customs duty at 60% + 15%. The goods were cleared in early January, 1978. On 16-5-1978, the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Gr.(V) issued a 'less-charge' memo directing the appellants to pay Rs. 16,068.65 towards duty short-levied erroneously. The appellants submitted the reply on 20-5-1978, informing the Deptt. that the item imported by them was Dye-intermediate used in the manufactur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cording to him, the Tariff Entry did not contemplate any 'end-use'. The Deptt. has also not given adequate proof of the predominant use of the goods. He argued that the product could not be assessed under Item 65, but, only under Item 68 C.E.T. He urged that in view of the enormous delay, the appellants could not avail themselves of the benefit of proforma credit of the c.v.d. which otherwise they could have availed of. 4. Mr. Sunder Rajan, the J.D.R., pointed out that the general purpose of the anti-oxidant should be taken into consideration. According to him, when the Entry was specific reliance could not be placed on Tariff Entry 68. He placed reliance on 1983 E.L.T. 1566; 1983 E.L.T. 17 and 1983 ECR 1362. He also stated that an ....