SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 400

N.L.UNTWALIA, P.K.GOSWAMI, A.ALAGIRISWAMI
DUNLOP INDIA LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Judgment

GOSWAMI

( 1 ) IN these appeals by special leave the only question that is raised is whether the substance known as Pyratax-Vinyl Pyridine Latex (for short, V. P. Latex) is not rubber raw classifiable under item No. 39 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as I. C. T. ).

( 2 ) THE appellants are manufacturers of automotive tyres. V. P. Latex is required in the process of manufacturing of tyres. V. P. Latex is not manufactured in India and has to be imported from outside the country. The tyre industry uses V. P. Latex as one of the essential ingredients in the course of manufacture of automotive tyres.

( 3 ) THE appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1446 of 1972 imported sometime in April, 1969, 3 consignments of V. P. Latex. In appeal from the proceedings before the Assistant Collector of Customs for appraisement of the said consignments for the purpose of imposition of customs duty and/or countervailing duty, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, upheld the appellants contention and classified V. P. Latex under item 39 of the I. C. T. as raw rubber. The classification made by the Appellate Collector was revised by the Central Government in a proceeding init




























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top