Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cc Vs. Paramount Trading Corporation

Cc vs Paramount Trading Corporation

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 05, 1998
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13604

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Other Taxes

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Other Taxes

Key legal issue
Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cc

Respondent

Paramount Trading Corporation

Legal References

Reported In
(1998)(79)LC385Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....trading corporation, moradabad. the matter relates to the additional duty of customs known as countervailing duty in respect of the scrap imported.the appellate collector took a view that the scrap of recyclable material was not the result of a manufacturing activity and that it was not a 'manufactured' goods even if they were 'goods'. he held that the scrap when imported was not liable to pay the countervailing duty.2. in his common order-in-appeal the appellate collector of customs had disposed of 11 appeals from different files. the revenue have filed two appeals. the tribunal had directed the revenue to file 9 more supplementary appeals if they so desire. they have failed to do so. as the matter relates to the classification we proceed to deal with these two appeals on merits after hearing the ld. jdr shri s.n. ojha.3. the appeals were filed with the government of india and were subsequently transferred. the revenue has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case we condone the delay.4. the respondents m/s. paramount trading corporation had prayed for decisions on merits.5. shri s.n. ojha, ld. jdr submits that the matter is entirely covered by the apex court decision in the case of khandelwal metal & engineering works v. union of india . although, the apex court bench in the case of hyderabad industries ltd. v. union of india had in para 16 of its judgment expressed the view that the decision in the case of khandelwal metal & engineering works, referred to above, requires re-consideration of a larger bench, there was no stay of the said earlier order of the apex court. he submits that as the matter is already covered by the apex court decision the view taken by the ld. appellate collector was not correct and legal and the appeals filed by the revenue be allowed.6. we have carefully considered the matter. we find that the matter is covered in/ the apex court decision in the case of.....

Full Judgment

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Appeal dated 23.10.1980 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents are M/s. Paramount Trading Corporation, Moradabad. The matter relates to the additional duty of customs known as countervailing duty in respect of the scrap imported.

The Appellate Collector took a view that the scrap of recyclable material was not the result of a manufacturing activity and that it was not a 'manufactured' goods even if they were 'goods'. He held that the scrap when imported was not liable to pay the countervailing duty.

2. In his common order-in-appeal the Appellate Collector of Customs had disposed of 11 appeals from different files. The Revenue have filed two appeals. The Tribunal had directed the Revenue to file 9 more supplementary appeals if they so desire. They have failed to do so. As the matter relates to the classification we proceed to deal with these two appeals on merits after hearing the Ld. JDR Shri S.N. Ojha.

3. The appeals were filed with the Government of India and were subsequently transferred. The Revenue has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case we condone the delay.

4. The respondents M/s. Paramount Trading Corporation had prayed for decisions on merits.

5. Shri S.N. Ojha, Ld. JDR submits that the matter is entirely covered by the Apex Court decision in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works v. Union of India . Although, the Apex Court Bench in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India had in para 16 of its judgment expressed the view that the decision in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works, referred to above, requires re-consideration of a Larger Bench, there was no stay of the said earlier order of the Apex Court. He submits that as the matter is already covered by the Apex Court decision the view taken by the Ld. Appellate Collector was not correct and legal and the appeals filed by the Revenue be allowed.

6. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the matter is covered In/ the Apex Court decision in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works and Ors. v. Union of India, supra. The Apex Court held that the brass scrap was subject to additional duty of customs' in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act and that the application of the process of manufacture in the imported article was not relevant for levy of additional duty of customs.

7. We also agree with the Ld. JDR that till the Apex Court decision in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works supra, is set aside by the Apex Court it is the law of the land and had to be followed. The Apex Court had not recalled their earlier order but had only observed that it requires re-consideration by a Larger Bench.

8. The matter is very old. The original orders were passed during the period 1979 and 1980. The matter is corning up before the Tribunal from January, 1987 onwards.

9. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account we set aside the impugned order in appeal. As a result both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial