HARISH CHANDER, I.J.RAO
Johnson and Johnson Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay – Respondent
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture, among other things, sutures for medical use. For this purpose, they imported aluminium foil of two varieties. One variety was 'aluminium foil laminated to paper and heat-seal coated' and the other variety was 'aluminium foil heat-seal coated'. At the time of importation, the goods were classified under H. 76.03/0(2), C.T.A., and paid duty accordingly. In this appeal before us, there is no dispute about the classification. The appellants, subsequent to importation and payment of duty, claimed refund of a part of the duty paid by them. In respect of 6,600 sheets of aluminium foil, the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 173-Cus/77 and Notification No. 67-Cus/79. In respect of 256 kg. of aluminium foil (only heat-seal coated), they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 173-Cus/77. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim recording, inter alia, as follows :-
"The party has elaborately argued that the contents of aluminium in respect of the foil imported by them. While it is not defined that the purity is of definitely 97% but the point for consideration is whether the foil is laminated and coated or plain. This N
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.