2003 (6) TMI 350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed of Maganbhai Dayabhai Patel, a partner of the firm and other persons to the effect that the rough and polished diamonds had been smuggled into India by passengers and that the cut and polished diamonds have been obtained by polishing such rough and unpolished diamonds. On the basis of these statements and other documents, notice was issued to M. Ambalal & Company and the other persons concerned proposing confiscation of the diamonds under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act and imposing penalties on various persons concerned. On adjudication, the Collector ordered confiscation of the diamond with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 60 lakhs. He also imposed penalties of varying amount on the persons involved. His order re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the tariff. He did not accept the contention raised before him that by virtue of the result of the investigations, the diamonds have been ordered to be confiscated on the ground that they were smuggled and in the case of cut and polished diamonds that it is manufactured out of rough diamonds and that at the relevant time by application of Notification 247/78 diamonds were unconditionally exempted from payment of basic customs duty and auxiliary duty. This is the sole contention with which we are concerned in this appeal. 3. The Counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. CC - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 21 in which the Court has accepted the contention before it that drawings....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fiable in heading 98.03 of the tariff as baggage notwithstanding that Heading 49.06 which is otherwise applicable carries nil rate of duty. The Tribunal had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in ICC v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 3. The Supreme Court took the view that the definition of "dutiable goods", contained in Section 2(14) of the Act was somewhat different from the definitions of "excisable goods" contained in Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act and said that "with regard to Section 2(14) of the Customs Act the expression "chargeable to duty and on which duty has not been paid" indicates that goods on which duty has been paid or on which no duty is leviable and therefore no duty is payable, will no....