ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. The Collector of Customs, Madras has filed an appeal being aggrieved from a common order disposing often appeals passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras. The said appeal was received in the Registry on the 29th day of June, 1984, in respect of the above-captioned respondent.
Thereafter, two more supplementary appeals have been filed against the same respondent viz. M/s Balakrishna Mudaliar & Sons. The Collector has also filed two applications for condonation of delay. Notices of hearing were sent to the respondent from time of time. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the same on merits.
2. Shri M.K. Sohal, learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellant has pleaded that first the application for condonation of delay may be taken up. Shri Sohal pleaded that the original appeal was filed well within the prescribed period of limitation, and supplementary appeals were filed as soon as the appellant found that supplementary appeals are to be filed. He pleaded for condonation of delay.
3. After hearing Shri Sohal, learned JDR, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the supplementary appeals. The delay in the filing of the supplementary appeals is condoned.
4. Now, coming to the merits of the appeal, Shri Sohal, learned Junior Departmental Representative, pleaded that the respondent had imported several consignments of copper wire scrap and Brass Scrap and all the imports were in September- October 1982 and he pleaded that the dispute in the present three appeals is only in respect of countervailing duty. He pleaded that the appellants’ case is fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works and Anr. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that brass scrap was subject to additional duty of customs in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, and application of process of manufacture to the imported article irrelevant for the levy of additional duty on customs. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeals.
5. We have heard Shri M.K. Sohal, learned JDR and have gone through the records. The above matters are fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal& Engineering Works and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1985 (20) ELT 222. Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that brass scrap was subject to additional duty on customs in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. The taxable event in the case of customs duty is not the manufacture of goods. The expression “excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India” as occurring in Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is only the measure of duty leviable on the imported articles and does not determine the nature of duty. Section 12 of the Customs Act is the charging section and Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act does not require that the imported article should be such as to be capable of being produced or manufactured in India. Therefore, for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs, the concept of manufacture is irrelevant and accordingly the levy of additional duty of customs on the brass scrap cannot be challenged on this ground. In view of the above discussion, we, very respectfully, follow the judgment of the Supreme Court and held that additional duty of customs was leviable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the Revenue’s appeals.