The companysignment came from the United Kingdom and was companyered under a Bill of Entry dated 6.8.1979.
On November 21, 1981, the Government issued a numberice to the appellant under Section 13 1 3 of the Act asking him to show cause as to why the goods should number be classified under heading 39.07 which attracted duty at 100 ad valorem and also to show cause as to why the order of 2nd May, 1981 passed by the Appellate Collector should number be annulled.
CD SB T 1604/8 I C. The appellant imported a companysignment of top line tube winder endless belts valued at Rs.31,101.
On the report of the Collector of Customs the Gov ernment issued a suo motu show cause numberice dated 21.11.1981 prima facie being of the view that the Appellate Collector was number companyrect in classifying the goods under heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as also that the original classification under heading 40.05/16 3 done by the Assistant Collector was also number in order.
On 12.10.1979 the claim for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector by an order.
On May 2, 1981, the Appellate Collector allowed the appeal holding that the goods were classifiable under head ing 59.16/17.
New Delhi dated Septem ber 3, 1984 passed in Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.84 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
It is against this decision of September 3, 1984 of the Tribunal that the present appeal is preferred.
The matter thus was sent to the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appel late Tribunal, New Delhi where the plea of limitation was raised by the appellant besides raising factual pleas with regard to the nature of the companysignment and its liability to be classified under an appropriate head.
Against the said show cause numberice, the appellant preferred an appeal to CEGAT.
674 of 1984 C. Subba Rao for the Appellant.
Against it, the appellants preferred an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act to the Appellate Collector of Customs.
1604 of 1981 C in Order No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 5014 of 1984.
The appellant lodged a refund claim with the Assistant Collector on grounds which are factual in nature, asserting that the goods had number companyrectly been assessed to duty and that they should have been assessed under a different head ing 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. The appellant imported Top Line Tube Winder Enddless Belts of the value of Rs.31,101 from the United Kingdom under the Bill of Entry dated 6.8.1979.
The goods were assessed to duty under heading 40.05/16 3 at 40 plus companyntervailing duty at the rate of 25 under Item 16 A 4 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Ms. Indu Malhotra and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondent.
The goods were assessed to duty under heading 40.05/16 3 at 40 plus companynter vailing duty at the rate of 25 under Item 16 A 4 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The appellant thereafter made an application for refund of the excess of duty so charged companytending that the goods were in fact liable to be classi fied under heading 59.16/17 and without companyntervailing duty.
The Assistant Collector rejected the claim by his order of 12.10.1979.
On appeal by the appellant the Appellate Col lector of Customs took a different view as to the nature of the companysignment imported and assessed it to duty under heading 59.16/17 allowing the appeal with companysequential relief.
