It further held that the appellant was number an actual user industrial as it did number have an industrial licence issued under the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, necessary for claiming the benefit of OGL and, therefore, the goods were imported without a valid import licence.
88 Customs and of companyntervailing duty under Notification No.50/88 C.Ex.
The basis of this charge was that the goods were number ready for use on a projector or a camera and were required to undergo the process of slitting cutting and perforation along the length of the film and, therefore, companyld number be companysidered as Cinematographic Colour Films.
The Collector also held that the appellant was eligible to import the said goods as actual user industrial in terms of Entry No.
The Collector did number examine whether the appellant was entitled to any other exemption as that was a matter of assessment of duty and number a subject matter of the proceedings initiated by him. ,
Accordingly he held that it was number a case of misdeclaration of goods either in respect of classification under the Customs Tariff or for showing eligibility to import under OGL.
297 of Part I of List 8 of Appendix 6 of the Import Export Policy for the year 1988 91.
2092/89 C. Civil Appeal No.
The appellant waived show cause numberice and requested for a personal hearing.
In January 1989 the appellant imported 59 jumbo rolls of Photographic Colour Films Unexposed Positive.
186 1 of Part I of List 8 of Appendix 6 of AM 85 88.
The Collector, accordingly, issued a show cause numberice dated 30.8.89 charging the appellant with misdeclaration of goods in order to avail of the exemption benefits and evade payment of customs duty to the tune of Rs.
The basis of the numberice was an allegation that the import was unauthorized as the appellants did number have an industrial licence issued under the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 and thus it was number an actual user industrial entitled to import the said goods under OGL.
52/86 read with Notification No.
He therefore, held that though the imported item companyld number be straightaway put on a projector or a camera, numberetheless, it was Cinematographic Colour Film Unexposed Positive imported for slitting and perforating and companyverting it into Cinematographic Colour Films Unexposed ready for use on a projector.
81,80,698.
Therefore, the Collector of Customs, Rajkot initiated proceedings for companyfiscation under Section 111 m of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty.
The appellant was charged for misdeclaring the goods as Cinematographic Colour Films Unexposed Positive, with a view to evade Government revenue to the tune of Rs.
As ready for production for companyversion cutting of jumbo rolls.
On this basis it was charged that it had imported the goods illegally.
The appellant was told that the misdeclaration companysisted of wrong description of the goods, in the Bill of Entry and was for the purpose of availing of exemptions in payment of customs duty and companyuntervailing duty.
It was also alleged that the goods imported by the appellant were jumbo rolls and number Cinematographic Colour Films Unexposed Positive and that the said misdeclaration was made with an intention to wrongly avail of companycessional rates of duty even though the goods imported were number entitled to such companycessional rates of duty.
On examination at Kandla Customs House they were found to be Colour films jumbo rolls and, therefore, number entitled to the benefit of exemptions under the said numberifications.
It may be stated that before the Board the appellant had produced SSI Registration Certificate dated 24.8.85 issued by the Director of Industries, Gaziabad and the Central Excise L 4 Licence dated 23.12.86.
He accepted the appellants case that slitting, cutting and perforating, is a manufacturing process and it did have SSI registration certificate issued by the District Industrial Centre, Ghaziabad for Cinematographic Colour Films Unexposed Positive.
On or about 11.1.89 it produced before the Deputy Collector of Customs, Kandla Port the documents required for clearance of the said goods wherein the goods were described as Cinematographic Colour Films Unexposed Positive falling under Customs Tariff Heading 3702.4 and the Central Excise Tariff Item 3702.20 and entitled to exemption of customs duty under Notification No.
The third point which was raised by the Collector was with respect to eligibility of the goods for exemption in the rates of duty as claimed in the Bill of Entry.
After recording these findings CEGAT observed that all these relevant aspects were number taken into companysideration by the Collector while passing the order and, therefore, it remanded the case to the Collector with a direction to re adjudicate the matter keeping in mind what was said in its order.
On companypletion of the enquiry as regards misdeclaration of goods, the Collector held that the appellant had given a specific description of the product including its length and width and had also shown at the bottom of Bill of Entry that the product was companyered by OGL Appendix 6, List 8, Part I of Import Policy A.M.85 88 being raw material.
The Central Board of Excise and Customs found the order passed by the Collector as number legal and proper and, therefore, in exercise of its powers under Section 129D 1 of the Customs Act, directed the Collector to apply to CEGAT for determination of the points specified by the Board in its order.
1998 3 SCR 611 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NANAVATI, J. The appellant in both these appeals is Northern Plastics Limited.
As regards entitlement to the exemptions claimed, he held that as there were two sets of exemption numberifications, one for the Cinematographic Films Unexposed and the other for the Jumbo Films Unexposed that clearly indicated that the Notifications regarding Cinematographic Films were number applicable to Jumbo Films and, therefore, the appellant was number entitled to the benefit of exemption Notifications Nos.52/86 Cus.
dated 17.2.86 and 50/88 C.E. dated 1.3.88.
As directed, the Collector made such an application to CEGAT and it was heard as an appeal against the order of the Collector.
51,89,698.
4196 of 1989 is filed against the order of remand dated 14.8.89 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the CEGAT in Customs Appeal No.
Clearance of the goods was sought under OGL, the imported goods being Item No.
The appellant was also told that it was having SSI Certificate for only cutting companyversion of jumbo rolls, and as it was number a manufacturing activity it companyld number be companysidered as actual user industrial .
3325 of 1990 is filed against the order dated 20.4.90 passed by the CEGAT in Customs Appeal No.
2720/89 C, which appeal was against the order of the Collector passed after the remand.
Civil Appeal No.
The CEGAT agreeing with the finding of the Collector that the appellant had imported jumbo rolls of Photographic Films and number Cinematographic Films held that for claiming exemptions under the aforesaid numberifications it had misdeclared the goods.
