AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (6) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of stamping foils by the ship MARTHA FISSER and warehoused the goods. On 9-6-1980 they presented a Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods from the warehouse for home consumption. On 10-6-1980 the goods were assessed to duty under Heading No. 32.04/12(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff" Act, 1975 at 100% ad. val. (basic duty) plus 20% ad. val. (auxiliary duty) plus 8% ad. val. (countervailing duty equivalent to the excise duty under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule). The appellants disputed the assessment and claimed assessment at 40% ad. val. only in terms of Serial No. 12 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 29-Cus., dated 10-2-1979. Serial No. 12 read as "buckles and other embellishments for footwear". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was due to the delay and negligence on the part of the Custom House that the situation had changed with adverse consequences for the appellants. The Appellate Collector did not countenance these contentions and observed in his order dated 15-10-1980 that he could not go behind the causes for delay and that if the appellants felt aggrieved because they had to pay higher duty because of the delay in clearance, the proper forum for agitation would be a Civil Court and that he, as a quasi-judicial authority, would not be able to go into the matter. He, however, held that in terms of the Notification an end-use bond was not necessary. On the question whether stamping foils were at all embellishments within the meaning of the deleted entry in No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. However, it was only on 10-9-1980 that the Assistant Collector made his order denying the concessional assessment. In the said order, the Assistant Collector, in effect, admitted that the goods were entitled to the concessional rate and it was, therefore, that the importers were asked to furnish a bank guarantee. However, in the meantime, the relevant entry came to be deleted and the concession was no longer applicable; (iii) The notification in question has statutory force, reliance being placed in this connection on AIR 1957 S.C. 790. The appellants' right to the benefit conferred by the notification cannot be taken away or defeated by the procedural law contained in Section 15 of the Customer Act. Reliance was also placed in this c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly bonded in a warehouse and the Bill of Entry for ex-bond clearance for home consumption was presented on 9-6-1980. By the time the Customs authorities took a decision in the matter, Serial No. 12 of Notification 29-Cus., dated 10-2-1979 (with reference to which Serial No. the appellants are claiming relief) came to be deleted by Notification No. 170-Cus., dated 28-8-1980. Therefore, though the appellants may have been entitled to the benefit of the notification on the date they presented the Bill of Entry, by the time the Bill of Entry was processed and a decision taken by the Assistant Collector on 10-9-1980, the concession was no longer available. According to Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the rate of duty and tariff valuatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....40% ad. val. Thereafter, the question whether a particular consignment was eligible for the concessional rate was to be determined only by the provisions of the Customs Act. Section 15 lays down the relevant date for determination of inter alia the rate of duty in different situations. The situation in the present case is the one described in Section 15(l)(b). We cannot find fault with the denial of the concessional rate under the notification in respect of the present consignment. The reference to the Tribunal's order in 1983 E.L.T. 1671 (CEGAT) is of no assistance to the appellants. In that case the Tribunal was concerned with the question whether the right of appeal was a matter of substantive right and not merely a matter of procedure. ....