TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (8) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner is inter alia the manufacturer of "Electronic Flash Guns," which are attachments to be attached to cameras. The Petitioner in the firm name had imported 3539 pieces of International Silicon Rectifiers under Bill of Entry bearing Case No. 4211 dated 20lh September, 1968. Similarly the Petitioner had imported 5682 pieces of the very same item under bill of entry bearing Case No. 625 dated 5th October, 1968. This import was pursuant to actual user's import licence which had been granted to the Petitioner on the basis of verification made by the Small Scale Industries Department, Government of Maharashtra. This Department had certified that the Petitioner was using and was required to use the said rectifiers for the manufacture of electr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Customs and by his orders dated 12th June, 1970 and 7th July, 1970 the second respondent rejected both the contentions. 3. Being aggrieved by these two orders of the respondent No. 2, the matter was carried further in revision to the Government of India and by the order of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, the revision application was rejected. 4. Copies of the Orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs are found annexed to the Petition as Ex. A. The orders deal with the Petitioner's claim for refund, which was on the footing that the goods should not have been subject to countervailing duty by reason of the orders contained in the Notification earlier referred to which was one dated 1st July, 1968. According to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 1st July, 1968 but with respect to the learned Officer who has dealt with the said circular, I am unable to follow what he means to say in his order. If at all any portion of that part of the revisional order can be followed, it would seem that the learned Officer, although he was of the rank of the Joint Secretary, has completely mis-directed himself on what the circular provides. If one peruses the circular, it is clear and obvious that the circular was meant to provide for the type of case which was before the joint secretary. 33A was directed to be reasonably applied by the said circular. 33AA as it then stood provided for a rate of duty Re. one on transistors, semi-conductors and diodes but as the entry indicates the duty was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t wireless sets." (underlining supplied) 6. I am unable to appreciate the reason why the Assistant Collector of Customs or the Joint Secretary in revision have been unable to understand this very simple circular which provides that where electronic valves, tubes, transistors, semi conductor and diodes (or parts of transistors) are imported, which are capable of more than one type of use, duty free clearance will be allowed provisionally under Rule 9B. It also provides for the second stage, namely, that subsequently the use should be verified. If the use is for the purpose of other than as part of wireless receiving sets (including as part of transistor radios) then the provisional free clearance should be confirmed indicating clearly tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctifiers or semi conductors diodes. Realising the intention that the duty was to be levied only as part of wireless receiving sets or transistors sets, the circular dated 1st July, 1968 was issued allowing for ultimate import free of duty of such items when they were to be used for a purpose other than in wireless receiving sets and transistors, i.e. for the type of electronic equipments for which the Petitioner had imported the items. 9. If any of these authorities whose orders are impugned herein had applied mind to the proper facts and circumstances of the case and to the circular it is impossible that they could have arrived at the decision which they have arrived at. In this sense all the orders are totally perverse known to law, th....