2016 (11) TMI 1427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Respondents : Harpreet Singh ORDER 1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate accepts notice for respondent nos. 2 and 3. With consent, the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioner seeks a direction for the respondents to process its application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act claiming a refund of additional customs duty made on import under Section 3(1) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 28.09.2016. This Court in Micromax Informatics Ltd. (supra) extracted the contentions and findings recorded by the Supreme Court which had considered earlier rulings, such as, Motiram Tolaram vs. Union of India 1999 (112) ELT 749 (SC); Hyderabad Industries vs. Union of India 1999 (108) ELT 321 (SC) and discussed the principle applicable in the following terms: "..... 7. We are of the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was relied upon by this Court in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. (supra) while interpreting Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act itself; albeit in somewhat different context. However, the manner in which the issue was dealt with lends support to the case of the Assessee herein. In that case, the court noted that Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act provides for levy of an additional duty. The duty is, in other word....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in India' do not mean that the like article should be actually produced or manufactured in India. As per the explanation if an imported article is one which has been manufactured or produced, then it must be presumed, for the purpose of Section 3(1), that such an article can likewise be manufactured or produced in India. For the purpose of attracting additional duty Under Section 3 on the imp....