ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The short question arising for consideration in this appeal of the assessee is whether the assessee is liable to pay Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act on the goods imported by them, warehoused prior to 2.6.98 and cleared from warehouse for home consumption after that date. Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act came into force on 2.6.1998. The goods in question had been imported and warehoused prior to that date. In other words, when the into-bond Bills of Entry were filed, SAD was not leviable on the goods. When the ex-bond Bills of Entry were filed for clearance of the goods for home consumption, SAD was leviable. The question arose as to whether such duty was recoverable from the appellants with reference to the date of filing of the into-bond Bills of Entry. On this question, both the lower authorities held against the assessee. Hence the present appeal.
2. There is no representation for the appellants, who have waived their right to be heard and have requested the Bench to decide the case on merits without hearing them. Ld. SDR submits that the issue is already covered against the assessee by the apex Court’s judgment in Kiran Spinning Mills v. CC . He has referred to para 6 of the cited judgment, which reads as under:
6. Attractive, as the argument is, we are afraid that we do not find any merit in the same. It has now been held by this Court in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. that the purpose of levy of additional duty Section 3 of the Tariff Act is a charging section. Section 3 Sub-section (6) makes the provisions of the Customs Act which, inter alia, provides that the rate of duty which will be payable would be on the day when the goods are removed from the bonded warehouse. That apart, this Court has held in Sea Customs Act – that in the case of duty of customs the taxable even is the import of goods within the customs barriers. In other words, the taxable event occurs when the customs barrier is crossed. In the case of goods which are in the warehouse the customs barriers would be crossed when they are sought to be taken out of the customs and brought to the mass of goods in the country.
(emphasis added)
3. Going by the above ruling of the apex Court, we find that, in the present case, the goods crossed customs barrier on the date of their clearance for home consumption under the ex-bond Bills of Entry. That event took place after 2.6.1998, the date on which SAD became leviable under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act. Therefore, the appellants are liable to pay the duty on the goods cleared from warehouse for home consumption.
4. They have relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. , wherein it was held that the assessee was not liable to pay duty of excise on goods manufactured prior to introduction of the levy. We are unable to accept as apposite the reliance placed by the assessee on the said judgment inasmuch as the principles underlying levy of customs duty are not analogous to those governing levy of excise duty. The appellants, in this appeal, have also referred to Kiran Spinning Mills (supra). They say that the decision in Kiran Spinning Mills is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is said that, in the said case, the apex Court was interpreting Section 15 of the Customs Act without considering the taxable event under Section 12 of the Act. This understanding of the assessee is glaringly erroneous inasmuch as their Lordships considered the taxable event while holding that the levy of customs duty was on the goods when it crossed customs barrier to become a part of land mass of the country.
5. As rightly submitted by ld. SDR, the issue is already covered against the assessee by the apex Court’s judgment in Kiran Spinning Mills (supra). The impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)