1983 (8) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellants. Shri K.V. Kunhi krishnan, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER This is a Revision Application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal. 2. There are two issues involved in this appeal, rela....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ven by Item 59 and were, therefore, not liable to countervailing duty at all, since the importations took place in 1973, when Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff was not in existence. 3. Shri Gupta also argued that there was no question of assessing the goods to countervailing duty with reference to Item 15A, covering artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials. According to him,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....levant time rayon and synthetic fibres and yarn, was ruled out. The goods could not be classified under Item 59, which specifically covered insulating tape, since the goods were not in the form of tape. The literature furnished by the appellants showed that it was normally supplied in rolls 50 metres long and 914 mm. wide. Shri Kunhi krishnan further submitted that the goods clearly fell under Ite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng material. We are unable to accept Shri Gupta's contention that Item 15A would not cover these goods which are articles made wholly of polyester. 6. At the relevant time, Item 15A carried a higher rate of excise duty than Item 18, with reference to which the goods in question were charged to countervailing duty. W do not consider it appropriate at this stage to order re-assessment of the....