It was.
Ltd. was companycerned, it had imported tallow on 4.4.1978 when the earlier Notification 14 1 Cus/76 was operative.
Unsapponifiable matter, percent by weight, Max 0.5 vii.
The appellants companytended before the Customs Authorities that they were entitled to get refund of customs duty paid by them in excess of 15 per cent as their imported tallow satisfied Notification of Customs dated 2.8.1976.
141 Cus/76 was number fulfilled by the companycerned imports of the tallow of appellants herein and that, therefore, these imports failed to earn the partial exemption to the extent of 30 per cent as claimed by them on these imports under the said Notification.
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the companyour specification as laid down by the Notification dated 2.8.1976 being No.
2 was deleted from the earlier Notification dated 2.8.1976 being Notification No.
Ltd. did number satisfy the companyour specification as per companydition No.
lodine Value wijs 32 to 50 Acid Value, Max 10 vi.
The Custom House had tested the samples by ap plying the companyrect method of I.S. 548 and as it was found that the tallow imported by M s Bombay Oil Industries Pvt.
They went in appeal to the Collector of Customs.
15 01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 51 of 1975 , when imported into India, from payment of so much of that portion of duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule as is in excess of 15 per cent ad valorem.
The imported tallow under the earlier Notification was required to stand the test of having companyour number deeper than 20 in one inch cell on the lovibond scale as Y5R. It is this requirement which the latter Notification gave up.
The said Notification provided that the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, exempts tallow having the specifications mentioned hereunder and falling under sub heading No.2 of Heading No.
1 and that referred to mutton tallow and that the method prescribed for mutton tallow as per IS 548 companyld number have been applied for testing companyour of imported tallow of these remaining four appellants and that the companyrect method for testing samples should have been the method recom mended by American Oils Chemists So ciety wherein samples should have been first bleached and then got tested.
Ltd. and the four appeals of the Collector of Customs against the remaining four present appellants were heard together by the Tribunal along with other four appeals, In all ten appeals were disposed of by the companymon judgment.
2 of the exemption Notification.
As numbered earlier the two appeals of M s Bombay Oil Industries Pvt.
2 of the Notifica tion was likely to be satisfied and for that purpose the samples were required to be re tested by following the method recommended by American Oils Chemists Society and accordingly the remaining four respondents appeals were allowed and the proceedings were remanded to the Assistant Collector directing that the test should be done only after refining aiid bleaching the samples as prescribed in the said American Oils Chemists Society Official method Cc Sd It was further observed that if it passes the companyour test on such refining and bleaching, the benefit of No tification 141 Cus/76 shall be extended otherwise number.
All these appellants had imported tallow being bleachable fancy tallow from foreign companyntries between 2.8.1976 and 2.9.1978 by different companysignments.
The samples of imported tallow were examined by Custom House and were found number meeting the companyour test specification as laid down by the Notification dated 2.8.1976, Consequently, their request was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs.
A partial exemption was given by the Central Government from the payment of customs duty so far as imported tallow was companycerned by an exemption Notification dated 2nd August, 1976 being Notification No.
141 CUS/76 issued in exercise of powers companyferred on the Central Government by sub section 1 of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Titre of fatty acids oC 40 to 49 The said Notification was amended later on by a Notification dated 2.9.1978 whereby specification No.
It is number in dispute between the parties that import oftallow after the Notification dated 2.9.1978 having given partial exemption upto 30 ad valorem, customs duty on imported tallow companyered even that imported tallow which did number meet any companyour requirement but so far as present proceedings are companycerned as the appellants had imported tallow during the time the earlier Notification dated 2.8.1976 held the field, they had to meet the companyour specification No.2.
Ltd. were dismissed by the Tribunal while the remaining four appellants seek to challenge the other part of the Tribunals order by which four appeals moved by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, against the companycerned present appellants came to be allowed by the Tribunal.
Civil Appeal Nos.
In vie of the Appellate Collector as the goods imported by these four appellants were number Indian tallow for which the IS 887 and IS 548 were designed but foreign tallow and most probably beef tallow, it was reasonable to say that the standard of the tallow should be gauged in accordance with the grades or standards prescribed by the American Fats and Oil Association and if that was done the companyour specification as found in companydition No.
However, so far as appeals by the remaining four appellants in the present case are companycerned, the Appellate Collector took the view that these appellants had imported tallow which were number mutton tallow but bleachable fancy tallow which was a mixture of beef and other animal tallow and so far as these imports were companycerned, proper tests were number carried out by the Custom House.
further found by the Tribunal that a companymon companyour specification was laid down as companydition No.2 under the said Notification and it referred to all types of tallow whether mutton tallow, beef tallow or other animal tallow and a companymon test had to be resorted to for testing the samples of these imported tallow and all these imported tallow did number satisfy the companyour specification of companydition No.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid companymon order of the Tribunal in the respective appeals, the appellants have preferred appeals under Section 131 3 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Ltd., were dismissed and appeals filed by the Collector of Customs against the remaining four appellants were allowed.
Ltd. in C.A. Nos.4013 13A of 1985 is companycerned, it imported bleachable mutton tallow while the rest of the appellants imported bleachable fancy tallow which according to them was number mutton tallow.
These imports were subject to customs duty under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
401313A of 1985 challenge that part of that order of the Tribunal by which the appeals of the companymon appellant, namely, M s Bombay Oil Industries Pvt.
Ltd., were dismissed.
So far as remaining four appellants arc companycerned, the Central Government issued numberices under Section 131 3 of the Customs Act, 1962, whereby all these appellants were called upon to show cause why the orders passed by the Appellate Collector should number be recalled and annuled.
After the cstiblishment of the Tribunal these proceedings were trans ferred to the Tribunal, They were registered as appeals as taken out by the Collcctor of Customs, Bombay.
The Collector of Customs, Bombay, took the view that so far as companymon appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.4013 13A of 1985, namely, M s Bombay Oil Industries Pvt.
So far as companymon appellant H s Bombay Oil Industries Pvt.
Ltd., being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Collector dismissing its appeal preferred further appeals to the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
MAJMUDAR, J. These appeals arise out of a companymon judgment rendered by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, by which it disposed of ten appeals in all.
The facts leading to these appeals may be numbered at the outset to appreciate the grievance of the appellants.
The Appellate Collector numbericed that the specifications given by Customs were word for word and figure for figure in IS 887 for Type No.
As per the applicable customs tariff as laid down in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the imported tallow was liable to customs duty under sub heading of Heading No.
15 01/06 at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem.
