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

V.T.RAGHAVACHARI, V.P.GULATI
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J. Vellapally,A.S. Sunder Rajan

ORDER

V.P. Gulati, Member (T)

1. These appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The brief facts of the case are that appellants imported and cleared for home consumption a number of consignment of pitch (aluminium grade) and apart from the duty under the Customs Tariff, countervailing duty was charged under Tariff Item 68 CET. The appellants, however, claimed the assessment of the same under Tariff Item 11 (2) CET, read with Notification No. 121/62-CE. The plea of the appellants before the lower authorities as before us is that the pitch imported by them is covered by the description partially distilled coal tar' under Tariff Item 11 (2) CET and benefit of assessment, therefore, under Notification 121/62-CE available to the same should be allowed to them.

2. The learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded that pitch imported by the appellants was intended for making electrodes. He pleaded that basically there is not much difference between the pitch and tar and in support of his plea, cited the publication - Coal Tar Products and Related Dyes page 56 and drew our attention to the following observations in this publication:-

There are no fundamental d

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