TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (4) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m No. 40(7) of the Indian Customs Tariff as then prevailing, and so far as countervailing duty was concerned, these were treated to be goods falling under Item 16B of the Central Excise Tariff (CET for short). After paying the duty, the appellant filed a refund claim of the amount paid on account of countervailing duty, contending that these goods known as `Strato Glass' did not come under any heading of the CET and as such no countervailing duty could be levied and that they could not be treated to be falling under Item 16B of the CET, for this purpose. 2. However, refund claim was rejected by Order dated 22-8-1976 by the Assistant Collector of Customs, New Delhi on the ground that the goods were assessed for the purpose of customs d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt against this rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Collector and it is this revision petition which has been received by transfer as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal by virtue of provision of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the same is being disposed of as such. 5. In the grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the material imported was known as `Strato Glass' which was a fire resistance glass manufactured in accordance with the specifications as recommended by Boeing Company, and was to be used in the light of the recommendations made by the manufacturers of Boeing Aeroplanes. There is also reference to some guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance by means of letter F. No. 5/74/68-Cus. I dated 10-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such ground was even specified before the Appellate Collector. He also conceded that this plea of benefit of exemption notification on the contention that this article was in the nature of "unveneered particle board", was not taken up before, and there was no such plea even in the revision petition, before the Central Government, which is now being taken up for disposal as an appeal. He also showed a sample of the goods which appeared clearly to be in the form of laminated wall board and it was admitted that this is only used for lining of the cargo cabins. 7. Shri Kunhikrishnan, learned Departmental Representative in reply, pointed out that once the goods were classified for purposes of basic customs duty under Tariff Entry 40(7) of....