Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M.A. Kachwalia And Sons vs Collector Of Customs on 18 August, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(43)ELT485(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
1. The only issue for determination in this appeal is the correct classification under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the CET) of six consignments of glass mirrors imported by the appellants. The appellant's claim that the goods fell under Item No. 68 CET was rejected by the lower authorities, the lower authorities holding that the correct classification was under item 23(1) CET. It should be noted here that the classification under the CET is relevant for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs in terms of Section 3 (1) of the Customs Act, 1975, which alone is in dispute in this appeal.
2. We have heard Shri F.L. Berarwalla, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Vineet Kumar, Sr. D.R. for the respondent.
3. In Atul Glass Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise and Ors. 1986 (25) ELT 473(SC), the Supreme Court has considered the very question of classification of glass mirrors under the CET and ruled that Item No. 68 CET was the correct item and not Item No. 23A (4). That case pertained to the period after 1-3-1979 when Item No. 23A underwent amendments. The imports covered by the present appeal are also after 1-3-1979. Following the Supreme Court's decision, we hold that the glass mirrors involved in these consignments were also classifiable under Item No. 68 CET. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
4. The Registry, it appears, has erroneously asked the appellants to file supplementary fees on the basis that Collector (Appeals) had disposed of 6 appeals. We find from the record that though there were 6 matters, before the Assistant Collector and 6 orders were passed by him, the Collector (Appeals) entertained a single appeal against all the 6 orders and passed a single order. Therefore, there was no occasion to ask the appellants to file supplementary fees. We direct that the supplementary appeal fees so collected be refunded to the appellants.