Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Hindustan Photo Film Manufacturing Co. ... vs Collr. Of Customs on 13 January, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1990(46)ELT57(TRI-DEL)
ORDER H.R. Syiem, Member (T)
1. At the time of hearing, the learned Assistant Manager for M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Company, Mr. P.V. Narayanaswamy, presented a paper containing their submissions for the hearing. After setting out the history of the case briefly and the use to which the machines are put, the appellants say that the request for classification of the perforating machine for cine films under CTA 84.59(2) had been finally acceded by the Madras Customs House, and from the year 1981 the assessment was made accordingly. For this reason, the dispute on the assessment of the perforating machine against the bill of entry had not been finally settled. The case was alive and now had come up before this Tribunal. He also quoted in support Order No. 650/86-B2 dated 24-7-1986 of this Tribunal and order-in-original No. S25/3478/81, dated 18-5-1983 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Section, Madras.
2. As a consequence of the above, the appellants, M/s. Hindustan Photo Films, pray that as requested in their revision application dated 29-6-1981, this Tribunal give a ruling to compute the customs duty after excluding the 3% trade discount given by the supplier and to classify the cine film perforating machine under importation under heading 84.59(2) CTA for purposes of assessment; and to order refund of the excess amount of duty due to them.
3. The learned Assistant Manager also said that they had no further submission to make in respect of the countervailing duty and they did not wish to pursue this matter.
4. The learned counsel for the department, Mr. Gopinath, however, pointed out, and correctly too that the revision application dated 29-6-1981 was a request for revision against the order-in-appeal No. C.3/22/1980 dated 4-6-1981. This order of the Appellate Collector arose from an order dated 5-12-1979 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, group I, Madras Custom House and deals only with a demand for Rs. 57,151.07 on the goods as countervailing duty under item 68 CET. Since the appellants accept the leviability of the goods to countervailing duty and since the appellants' representative does not want to pursue the matter, there is no submission and no hearing to be presented in respect of this duty.
5. The learned SDR, Mr. Gopinath then submitted that the question of the discount of 3% was dealt with by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Section, Madras, in his order dated 26-4-1979. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim saying that the discount was specially extended to this claimant and, therefore, the inclusion of the discount was in order. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal against this order of the Assistant Collector by order No. C.3/1517/79 dated 20-11-1979 saying that the appellants had not produced any documentary evidence to clarify the nature of the discount and that the invoice did not throw any light or it. The appellants themselves said to him in their appeal memorandum that the discount was allowed after prolonged discussion. This, according to the Appellate Collector showed that the discount was not available in the usual course of supply to all buyers. He accordingly rejected the claim. Mr. Gopinath said that there is no appeal against that order and, therefore, the Tribunal cannot go into the question of the discount now. He is correct.
6. This appeal/revision petition is rejected as the appellants accept the correctness of the countervailing duty levy.