Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Customs vs R.B. Chemicals on 20 March, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990ECR303(TRI.-DELHI), 1994(70)ELT475(TRI-DEL)
ORDER K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)
1. At the outset, we have before us an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in this matter, which is on account of the fact that the impugned order-in-appeal being a composite one, only one appeal was filed in the Tribunal. This appeal was within time limit. Appellant was required, however, to submit another appeal by the Registrar, CEGAT. In the light of these facts, we condone the dealy and take up the appeal.
2. We have heard Ms. Renuka Mann, SDR for the department, who are in appeal before us and Shri Navin Prakash, advocate, for the respondents.
3. The department is in appeal before us against the decision of Collector (Appeals), who allowed the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector who had held that Phenol USP grade imported by the respondents did not merit to be considered as a drug intermediate and, therefore, was not covered by Notification No. 234/82-C.E. The Collector (Appeals) decided that the goods imported were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 234/82-C.E. subject to respondents producing before the lower authorities, evidence that the goods in question have been used as such.
4. Both sides agreed before us that the issue is covered against revenue by earlier decisions which include;
(1) Bombay High Court decision in the case of Rakesh Enterprises and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. [1986 (26) E.L.T. 906] (2) Bombay High Court decision in the case of Kumar Prabhulal Shah and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [1987 (28) E.L.T. 193].
(3) Tribunal's decision in the case of Fair Deal Corpn. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 (16) E.L.T. 368].
5. Ms. Mann, the learned Sr. D.R., however, submits that she would like to reiterate the view taken in the appeal.
6. We have seen the cited decisions. There is no new issue raised by the department, which has not been considered in the above orders.
7. The only point that is made on behalf of the respondents is that the Collector (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of Notification No. 234/82-C.E., subject to the respondents producing before the lower authorities, evidence that the goods in question have been used as drug intermediate. It is submitted that in view of the abovecited judgments, it was not legal or proper for Collector of Customs (Appeals) to allow the appeal subject to satisfaction as regards usage of the goods.
8. We have pointed out to the learned advocate that what we have before us is an appeal of the department. No cross objection has also been filed by the respondents. Therefore, the respondents cannot take up the point as regards user's condition.
9. As regards the department's appeal, in view of the case law cited before us, it must fail and is, therefore, dismissed.