1981 (11) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 A of C. Ex. T. The appeal is against levy of this C.V. Duty on the ground that the goods are exempted from levy of C.V. Duty in terms of Notification 33/81-CE, dated 1-3-1981. 2. The appellants have stated that they have imported copper scrap "berry" as per Nari's specifications and while assessing the goods the lower authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 33/81-CE, dated 1-3-1981. The appellants aver that prior to this appeal similar such appeals involving identical goods were allowed by the Appellate Authority in Bombay. 3. The appellants stated that there has been misinterpretation of the Notification No. 33/81-C.E. more particularly clause (b) of the said Notification. The lower authority has held that "the notif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onal duty leviable under section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) has already been paid." 4. The appellants further aver that the contention of the lower authority seems to be that the earlier excise duty and c.v. duty should have been paid as mentioned in clause (a) of the notification. The appellants aver that this argument is entirely fallacious. Clauses (a) and (b) are disjunctive and in the alternative. This is plain from the reading of clauses (a) and (b) between which advisedly the word `or' occurs. They aver that the word `or' cannot mean `and'. The appellants rely on the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Ahura Chemical Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India-1981 E.L.T. 613 and stated that if that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, the lower authority was not justified in denying its benefit merely because the phrase aforesaid in the said notification "from the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to condition that" "whole of the duty etc." has been attributed to cover the copper referred to in pare(a) above as that has never been indicated in the notification. He relied on the legal opinion which was given to him by Advocate Shri Taraporewalla which he stated may be considered in the light of the ruling given in the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ahura Chemical Products Ltd. v. Union of India in October 1981 issue-1981 E.L.T. 613 (S.C.). Apart from this he stated that he has reduced his submissions in the form of a letter dated 18-11-1981. This may also b....