LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

M/S. GOODYEAR INDIA LTD vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY on 27 January, 1997

Cites 0 provisionsCites 2 judgmentsCited by 0
Official PDFBench Sam Piroj Bharucha
PETITIONER:
M/S. GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/01/1997
BENCH:
CJI, S.P. BHARUCHA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T

The appeal arises upon a judgment delivered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The appellants imported bulked nylon fabric. The bill of entry described the imported goods as being Nylon Woven Dipped Diffusion Resistance Fabric, Goodyear Code EO2 NN. The imported goods were cleared upon payment of duty as demanded. The appellants then claimed refund of the additional duty paid by them as now stated. The claim having been refused by the authorities below, the Tribunal was moved.

The Customs Tariff Act, 1975, prescribes in Section 3 for the levy of additional duty equal to excise duty. Subsection (1), its Explanation and sub-section (3) of Section 3 are relevant, and they read thus:

"3. Levy of Additional duty equal

to excise duty. - (1) Any article

which is imported into India shall,

in addition, be liable to a duty

(hereafter in this section referred

to as the additional duty) equal to

the excise duty for the time being

leviable on a like article if

produced or manufactured in India

and if such excise duty on a like

article in leviable at any

percentage of its value, the

additional duty to which the

imported article shall be so liable

shall be calculated at that

percentage of the value of the

imported article.

Explanation. - In this section, the

expression "the excise duty for the

time being leviable on a like

article if produced or manufactured

in India" means the excise duty for

the time being in force which would

be leviable on a like article if

produced or manufactured in India

or, if a like article is not

produced or manufactured, which

would be leviable on the class or

description of articles to which

the imported article belongs, and

where such duty at different rates,

the highest duty.

(3) If the Central Government is

satisfied that it is necessary in

the public interest to levy on any

imported article [whether on such

article duty is leviable under sub-

section (1) or not] such additional

duty as would counter balance the

excise duty leviable on any raw

materials, components and in

gradients of the same nature as, or

similar to those, used in the

production or manufacture of such

article, it may, by notification in

the Official Gazette, direct that

such imported article shall, in

addition, be liable to an

additional duty representing such

portion of the excise duty leviable

on such raw materials, components

and ingredients as, in either case,

may be determined by rules made by

the Central Government in this

behalf."

Under the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, the Additional Duty Rules, 1976, have been framed. Rule 2 states that for the purposes of Section 3(3) "the additional duty leviable on any imported article specified in column (2) of the Table annexed hereto shall be equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on the material specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table to the extent that material is used in the manufacture of the imported article". The Table reads thus: " TABLE S.No. Name of article Name of material 1. Fabrics containing more than 10 Synthetic

per cent by weight of synthetic fibre and

fibre or yarn. yarn.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 194, the Central Government, by Notification No. 55/78 dated 1st March, 1978, (hereinafter called "the said notification") exempted textured yarn of the description specified in column (2) of the Table thereto falling under sub-item II (i)(b) of Item No. 18 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, from so much of the excise duty leviable thereon as was in excess of the duty specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of that Table. The Table read thus: " THE TABLE S.No. Description Rate of duty 1.Textured yarn produced out The duty for the of Base yarn time being leviable

on the Base yarn if

not already paid

plus five rupees

per kilogram. 2. Other textured yarn - (Rs. per kilogram)

(a) Polyamide (nylon)

Textured yarn -

(i) below 38.5 deniers 63.80 (ii) 38.5 deniers and above 56.80

but below 88 deniers

(iii) 88 deniers and above but 49.80

below 121 deniers

(iv) 121 deniers and above but 42.80

below 165 deniers

(v) 165 deniers and above 24.60 Explanation I. - "base yarn" means yarn falling under subitem II(i)(a) of Item No. 18 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from which textured yarn has been produced;

The Tribunal noted the contention on behalf of the appellant that the yarn in question fell under S. No. 1 aforementioned and not under S. No. 2(a)(v), and the basis for the contention, namely, that the supplier of the imported goods had bought base yarn and subjected it to the process of air-bulking to produce the textured yarn that was imported. The Tribunal stated, counsel "contends that the description of the article relevant to the present case is textured yarn produced out of base yarn and not other textured yarn in notification 55/78. This contention has, in our opinion, substance". The Tribunal went on to add, "The description of the article in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act is Textured yarn. ‘Textured yarn produced out of base yarn’ is merely descriptive of process of manufacture. For duty purposes, notification No. 55/78 describes and fixes a different confessional rate of duty for textured yarn produced out of base yarn separately from other textured yarn. This itself shows that textured yarn is liable to excise duty at different rates, depending on the process of manufacture. The excise leviable on textured polyamide yarn of above 750 deniers would depend on the process of manufacture. It is Rs. 6.50 (Sl.No. 3 (b)(vi) of notification No.28/75 CE) plus Rs.5/- per kg. (Col. 3 against S1.No. 1 of notification 55/78 CE), if such textured yarn is produced out of base yarn. If it is produced otherwise, the rate of duty is Rs. 24.60 per kg. (S1.No. 2(a)(v) of notification 55/78). In such a situation, the yarn content of the imported fabrics would attract duty at the higher rate viz., Rs. 24.60 per kg. (plus special excise duty as may be applicable)."

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the imported goods were textured yarn produced out of base yarn, only that amount of additional duty was payable thereon as was specified against the description "textured yarn produced ut op base yarn" in the Table of the said notification. There was no question then of requiring the appellants to pay additional duty at a rate specified in the notification for "other textured yarn".

The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Revenue, placed reliance upon the Explanation to Section 3(1). In his submission, the imported goods were textured yarn in respect of which the said notification prescribed different rates of duty; therefore, under the Explanation to Section 3(1), the highest duty thereon was that which was payable by the appellants.

Section 3 requires that an article imported into India shall be liable to additional duty equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. The expression "the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India" has been defined by the Explanation to Section 3(1). It means the excise duty for the time being in force which would be leviable on a like article produced or manufactured in India. If a like article is not produced or manufactured in India, the expression means the excise duty which would be leviable on the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs; and where such excise duty is at different rates, the expression means the highest rate of duty. Section 3(3) enables the Central Government, in the public interest, to levy on an imported article such additional duty as would counterbalance the excise duty leviable on raw materials, components and ingredients of the same nature as are used in the manufacture of such article or are similar thereto. The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that an imported article shall bear addition duty representing such portion of the excise duty leviable on such raw materials, components and ingredients as it may by rules determine. It is in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3(3) that the Additional Duty Rules, 1976, have been framed and they specify that additional duty shall be imposed on fabrics containing more than 10 per cent by weight of synthetic fibre or yarn which shall be equivalent to the excise duty devisable on the synthetic fibre and yarn used therein.

Insofar as the imported goods are concerned, they fall, as the Tribunal has found, in the category of "textured yarn produced out of base yarn". In respect of "textured yarn produced out of base yarn" the excise duty that is leviable is that specified against that description in the Table of the said notification. The Explanation to Section 3(1) says of an article which is not produced or manufactured in India that the expression "excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured" means that duty which would be leviable on the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs. Since, admittedly, th imported goods fall within the description "textured yarn produced out of base yarn", the additional duty that is payable thereon is that specified against that description in the Table of the said notification and they cannot be made liable to additional duty at the rate specified for "other textured yarn", that is to say, for textured yarn that does not fulfill the description of being produced out of base yarn.

We are fortified in the view that we take by the decision of this Court in Thermax Private Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs (Bombay) New Customs House, (1992) 4 S.C.C. 440. The relevant paragraph is reproduced:

"Shri A.K. Ganguly, on behalf of

the Revenue, raises a contention

that, even assuming that the goods

fulfil the conditions of the

notification referred to earlier,

the CVD rate applicable would be 80

per cent by virtue of the

Explanation to Section 3(1) of the

C.T. Act. He submits that the goods

imported by the assessee as "parts

of refrigerating and air-

conditioning equipment". They are

chargeable at different rates of

duty accordingly as they fall under

item with serial No. 4 (80 per

cent) or that with serial No. 5

(nil) or that with serial No. 6 (20

per cent) or that with serial Nos.

7 and 8 (25 per cent). In such a

situation, he says, the provisions

of the Explanation to Section 3(1)

are attracted and hence the

assessee will be liable to duty at

the highest rate of 80 per cent. We

are both to permit the department

to raise at this stage a fresh

contention not taken before the

Tribunal or earlier. That apart, we

do not think it is well founded. It

is not doubt true that Item 29-A of

the Schedule to the C.E. Act is

very wide and covers various

articles. The notification also

deals with various categories of

articles falling under that item.

But there has been no dispute at

any stage that the goods we are

concerned with fall under item with

serial No. 8(3) of the

notification. So far as the

category of goods is concerned,

there is only one rate of duty

mentioned in the notification. The

fact that certain other parts of

refrigerating and air-conditioning

appliances and machinery may fall

under item with serial No. 4(3) or

elsewhere cannot attract the higher

duty on the goods presently under

consideration. The Explanation to

the notification (sic Section 3(1)]

is applicable only where goods of

exactly the same description

attract different rates of duty.

See, in this connection, the

decisions on analogous provision in

Collector of Customs v. Western

India Plywood Manufacturing Co.

Ltd., 1989 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 515 and

Collector of Customs vs. Hansur

Plywood Works, 1989 Supp. (2)

S.C.C. 520. We, therefore, reject

this contention. (Emphasis

supplied.)<slc>

We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was in error and that the judgment and order under appeal must be set aside.

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside.

No order as to costs.