2008 (3) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appeals filed by the appellant. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the recording of audio cassettes falling under Heading 85.24 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.  Recording is done on audio cassette recorders of which magnetic head is an essential ingredient.  Magnetic heads are imported and with regular use they get worn out and have to be sent abroad for re-lapping as no such facility is available in India. Eight consignments of magnetic heads were sent/exported to Singapore for repairs/re-lapping under shipping bills.  On its re-import after repairs against the said bills of entry, the appellant claimed concessional customs duty under Notification No.94/96-Cus. dated 16.12....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have been levied on the importation of goods for the first time. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon a Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 1999 (108) ELT 321(SC) contends that CVD is levied under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short 'the Tariff Act')  on all imported goods.  The CVD is leviable on all imported goods equal to the excise duty on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and chargeable to central excise duty but if such goods are not obtained by a process of production or manufacture then no CVD is leviable.  Hence, what is important for the purpo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the like kind and value are liable or subject on the importation thereof. Counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly conceded that when the magnetic goods were imported for the firs time, appellant had paid the basic customs duty as well as CVD.  It is also not disputed that after importation the goods were exported and then re-imported.  If that be so, on the re-importation of the goods the appellant would be liable to pay the same duty on the goods re-imported as had been paid when the goods were imported for the first time.  This contention of the counsel for the revenue is fully supported by the law laid down by this Court in Tata Tea Ltd. (supra).  In para 7, this Court , inter alia, observed as follows: "....