TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (4) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- guage of the notification in question being Notification No. 74/93-Cus., dated 28-2-1993 and on the Notification No. 167/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended, listed as General Exemption No. 41 to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. As far as the first ground is concerned the petitioners have reiterated their arguments made earlier. It has been submitted that the Notification No. 74/93 granted exemption to duties of customs specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in respect of Ships imported for breaking. It is submitted that both the preconditions subject to which the benefit had been granted had been fulfilled namely, additional duty formed part of "duties of customs" and secondly additional duty was specifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e annexure would therefore come clearly within the description of "the First Schedule". It was however, fairly pointed out to this Court that what was described as Annexure 1 in the copy of R.K. Jain's Customs Tariff of India 1993-94 did not find place in other publications of the Customs Tariff Act and its Schedule. An alternative argument was therefore made that the additional duty should be deemed to form part of the Schedule. It is submitted that the levy of additional duty was under Sections 1 and 2 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 12 referred to the leviability of duties of Customs at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force. It is stated that the Supreme Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act that Paragraph 82 of the Budget speech referred to merger between basic Customs duty and auxiliary duty. It is submitted that the use of the word "merge" in Paragraph 91 clearly therefore connoted merger between basic Customs Duty and auxiliary duty. It was then contended that by the earlier notification being Notification No. 142 of 1982 dated 27th March, 1987 exemption had been granted under Section 25 of the Customs Act in respect of duties of Customs and Additional Duties. Separate provision had been made for both. This would show that duties of Customs did not include additional duty. It is submitted that the notification in question did not supersede the earlier notification dated 27-3-1987 totally but only over-rode the earlier n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed and falling under Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act ,1985 (5 of 1986) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule: Provided that no process in or in relation to the manufacture of the said goods is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power: Provided further that the exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to sandalwood oil." THE TABLE Sl. No. Description of goods (1) (2) 1. All goods falling within Chapters 14, 71, 89 & 92. 9. Chapter 89 of the Central Excise Tariff Act like the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Tariff Item No. 89.08 under the Central Excise Tariff being nil by virtue of Notification No. 167/86- C.E./ dated 1-3-1986 the rate of Additional Duty in respect of Tariff Item 89.08 under the Customs Tariff Act must also be nil. 12. The requirement under Notification No. 167/86 that no power should be used in the process or in relation to the manufacture of the goods could, in the context of the language of Tariff Heading 89.08 mean the scrap produced by the breaking of the vessel. The writ petition contains a categorical averment that no power is used in the breaking up of the vessel. This has not been devised by the respondents. 13. In that view of the matter, the writ application must be allowed. The Order of Assessment dated 1....