2019 (6) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provides for levy of Customs Duty @ 16% for the present subject product namely 'Oleo Pine Resin'. The second respondent herein had issued a show cause notice dated 25.03.2003, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why Custom Duty of 16 % should not be levied and the provisional assessment finalised. The Writ petitioner had given a reply dated 29.04.2003 and not being satisfied with the explanation given, the impugned Order-in-Original came to be passed by the second respondent on 06.05.2003. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the earlier consignment, when a similar objection was raised by the respondent herein demanding Customs Duty for the product manufactured through manual process, the same ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erdict of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, in a case which has no relevance to the present case in hand. 5.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the Section 128 of Customs Act an Appeal remedy is available against the impugned order in original and hence the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for not availing the alternate remedy. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that earlier the petitioner herein had challenged the show cause notice issued by the second respondent before this Court in W.P.No.11703 of 2003, the same came to be disposed of by a direction to consider with a liberty to give his reply. When the High Court had also refused to entertain the writ ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondent in the impugned order by either disbelieving the same or questioning its validity. 10.Since the CEGAT had earlier held that a simple declaration evidencing that the product was manufactured without the aid of power would suffice for the purpose of grants exemption from payment of customs duty, there is no justification on the part of the second respondent herein to hold otherwise in the present impugned order. As such, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the declaration given or the certificate issued by the Government Agency of the Supplying Country, which would be sufficient for the purpose of the exemption, in view of the circular dated 31.03.2004. 11.The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submitted ....