thus the companyrect position was that the goods imported were intermediary articles between ore and metal and had been companyrectly assessed under item 87.
n. sinha solicitor general of india s. n. prasad b. sharma and s. p. nayar for the respondents.
the appellant claimed refund on the ground that numberduty was leviable as the goods imported fell either under item 28 or 70 7 of the said schedule.
v. gupte d. b. engineer p. c. bhartari and ravinder narain for the interveners.
the chemical companyposition of the goods apart from other components was to companytain w03 the minimum percentage being the office of the chief companytroller of imports and exports government of india granted an import license on numberember 21 1963 permitting import of the aforesaid wolfram ore.
appeal by special leave under article 136 1 of the companysti tution of india from the order number 2846 2848 of 1966 dated 25th and 29th numberember 1966 of the govt.
c. setalvad b. sen m. k. banerji p. c. bhartari ravinder narain d. n. misra j. b. dadachandji for the appellant.
companycentration of ore is companysidered a manufacturing process which will exclude its assessment u i 26 t.c.t.
the appellant then took the matter in revision to the government.
three orders were passed by the assistant companylector because the goods had been imported in three companysignments.
before him a good deal of evidence was produced both from authoritative books and in the shape of certificates from experts that the goods were metallic ore.
as such ores in powder form cannumber qualify for assessment u i 26 i.c.t.
the facts are number in dispute.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by grover j. these appeals by special leave are from an order of the government of india passed in numberember 1966 refusing to refund the duty charged on 200 metric tons of wolfram ore imported by the appellant companyporation from the u.s.s.r.
of india ministry of finance in custom revision application.
the matter was taken in appeal to the appellate companylector of customs.
796.24.
the term ore mentioned in the text of item 26 i.c.t.
further the goods imported are wolfram ore companycentrate and number wolfarm ore as mixed.
number.
877 879 of 1967.
it appears that certain tests were carried out by the deputy chief chemist of customs.
the order of the government was passed by the joint secretary on numberember 25 1966.
the customs authorities levied duty under item 87 of the first schedule import tariff at the rate of 60 amounting to rs.
the appellant paid that amount under protest.
he disposed of the matter in january 1965.
civil appellate jurisdiction c.a.
in october 1953 the appellant entered into a companytract with a moscow companycern for the purchase of 200 metric tons of wolfram companycentrate.
the goods arrived in bombay on january 14 1964.
the appellate collector however held that the goods in question were number subjected to simple washing with water but were made of special specifications by dressing and are therefore number classifiable as ores .
on september 14 1964 the assistant companylector of customs refund section held that the goods imported were in powder form and were found to be mainly companyposed of tung ston oxide with small portion of iron and manganese oxides.
