DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD & Anr. v. UNION OF INDIA & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs
Provisions considered
- Customs Tariff Act s. 3
Judgment
A limited argument is addressed in this appeal that impugns the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan. The appellants manufacture tyre yarn cord and fabric for which purpose they import tyre cord grade woodpulp from the United States of America. The appellants were called upon to pay additional duty thereon under the provisions of Sections 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. E F G Among other contentions raised by the appellants was this : The said H 511 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. ~ A woodpulp was not produced or manufactured in India. Under the terms of Section 3 additional duty had, therefore, to be calculated on the basis of the excise duty that would be leviable on the class or description of a~ticle ~ to which the said woodpulp belonged. There was no entry in the Tariff that related to an article of the like of the said woodpulp. Entry -68, being a residuary entry relating to no class or description of goods, did not apply.
No additional duty was, therefore, leviable on the said woodpulp. B The said contention was rejected by the Assistant Collt:ctor and by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellants. It is the only contention raised before us. Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, so far as it is relevant, reads thus: "S. 3.- Levy of Additional Duty equal to Excise Duty : (1) Any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to a duty (hereinafter in this section referred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty to which the imported article shall so liable shall be calculated at that percentage of the value of the imported article. \ Explanation : In this Section, the expression 'the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufac tured in india' means the excise duty for the time being in force which would be leviable on a like article if produced or manufac tured in India, or if a like article is not so produced or manufac tured, which would be leviable on the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs, and where such duty is leviable at different rates, the highest duty," · c D E F G It is the Explanation which is important.
Operative part
The expression "the excise duty for the time being leviable on the like article if produced or manufac tured in India used in the body of sub-section (1) is explained to mean the excise duty for the time being in force (a) which would be leviable on a H like article if produced or manufactured in Indian, or (b) if a like article DELHI CLOTII AND GEN. MILLS v. U.0.1. 513 is not produced or manufactured in India, the excise duty that would be A leviable on the class or description or articles to which the imported article belongs. Where a like article is not produced or manufactured in India additional duty is required to be levied on the imported article upon the basis of the excise duty that is leviable on the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs. Articles which are not elsewhere described, falling under the residuary Entry 68, form a class by themselves. Hence, if a like article is not described in the Tariff, additional duty is leviable on imported article upon the basis of the levy of excise duty under the provisions of Entry 68. · B c The only contention raised before us is rejected. The appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Customs Tariff Act — s. 3.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.