ORDER
S.C. Jain, Member (J)
1. This is a revision application filed by M/s. Union Carbide India Limited before the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962) against the order-in-appeal No. S/49-611/79-R dated 10-12-1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.
2. M/s. Union Carbide India Limited (hereinafter called the ‘appellants’) had imported Methyl Isocyanate (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said product’) for the manufacture of Carbaryl after 1st March, 1979 and it was assessed to countervailing duty corresponding to Item 68, C.E.T. That levy of c.v. duty is being disputed by the appellants.
3. As per the case of the appellants, the said product was not manufactured in India at the relevant time. Any product similar to the said product or which could be used as a substitute for the said product in the manufacture of Carbaryl, was also not manufactured in India and it is a class of its own and it could not attract any excise tariff and, therefore no c.v. duty was payable on the said product. The Assistant Collector of Customs as well as the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay did not accept the plea of the appellants and the appeal filed by the appellants before the Appellate Collector of Customs was dismissed by his order No. S/49-611/79 R dated 10-12-1979.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay the appellants filed a revision application for the Government of India which was transferred to this Tribunal and is being treated as an appeal.
5. We have heard Sh. M. Chandra Shekharan, Advocate alongwith Sh. A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate for the appellants and Sh. A.S. Sunder Rajan, J.D.R. for the department and gone through the record.
6. As per the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is payable on an article which is imported in India, only if the said article or a like article is produced or manufactured in India as provided under Section .3, subsection (1) of the said Act. The condition precedent which must be satisfied before the application of the said Section 3 of the said Act to any article which is imported in India is that a like article must be produced or manufactured in India. According to the learned counsel of the appellants, the said condition precedent is not satisfied in the case of the said product as neither the said product nor the like article was produced or manufactured in India and therefore no additional duty is payable under Section 3 of the said Act on the said product i.e. Methyl Isocyanate. The learned counsel further submitted that the said product does not belong to any class or description of articles, which attracts Central Excise duty under any of the Tariff Items 1 to 67 of the Central Excise Tariff. No additional duty can ever be payable on any article under Section 3 of the said Act by applying the duty payable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff even when the said article or a like article is not manufactured in India as the said item 68 is residuary item and does not describe or apply to a class of articles nor is it a description of any goods and/or articles or class of goods and/or articles. According to the learned counsel, an article which is not at all manufactured in India cannot fall under the said item 68. As per the submissions made by the learned counsel of the appellants the purpose of imposing the said additional/duty or the said c.v. duty was to counter balance the excise duty that is pay able on indigenous manufacture of identical articles or on indigenous manufacture of like articles and to eliminate an unfair competitive advantage which imported articles would otherwise enjoy over products competing with the indigenous products.
7. Lastly the learned counsel of the appellant drew our attention towards the memorandum of objects and reasons of the Customs Tariff Bill. According to the learned counsel, Section 3 provides for the levy of additional duty on imported article to counter balance excise duty leviable on the like article made indigenously or on the indigenous raw materials, components or ingredients which go into the making of the like indigenous article. This provision corresponds to Section 2A of the then existing Act and is necessary to safeguard the interest of the manufacturers in India.
8. Shri Sundar Rajan, the departmental representative countered the arguments of the learned counsel of the appellants and submitted that the plain reading of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the explanation appended thereto shows that the c.v. duty is attracted even if the like goods are not manufactured in India. According to him the memorandum of objects and reasons can be termed as aid for interpretation only if there is any ambiguity in the wording of the clear provisions of the Act as passed by the Parliament. If there is no ambiguity the question of turning to the memorandum of objects does not arise. According to the learned departmental representative, there is no ambiguity or matter of doubt in the clear provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay has correctly appreciated the facts and law while disposing of the appeal and it requires no interference.
9. The entire case is based upon the interpretation of the provisions of Section 3, Sub-section (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the explanation appended thereto, which reads as under :-
“Any article which is imported into Indian 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 be 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 manufactured in India” means the excise duty for the time being in force which would be leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India, or, if a like article is not so produced or manufactured, 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.”
10. The explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 clearly contemplates that c.v. duty shall be levied even if the like goods are not manufactured in India, provided, had they been manufactured in India they would have attracted excise duty under the excise tariff as it stood on the date of importation. The submission of the learned counsel of the appellants that the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is payable on an article which is imported in India only if the said article or the like article is produced or manufactured in India is not tenable. It is very difficult. if not impossible, to make an enquiry every time when the imports take place whether the like goods are manufactured in India or not. The explanation was inserted to Section 3(1) so that the need to find whether like goods are manufactured in India need not arise and the levy of c.v. duty in those circumstances need not be deemed illegal. Taxing Statute should be strictly interpreted. There is no ambiguity about the interpretation of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the explanation apended thereto. If there is no ambiguity regarding the provision of any Section contained in the Taxing Statute the question of turning to the memorandum of objects does not arise. The explanation appended to this Section has made it crystal clear that c.v. duty shall be levied on the imported goods even if the like goods are not manufactured in India, provided the like goods had they been manufactured would have attracted excise duty under the excise tariff as it stood on the date of importation. We find support to our findings from a decision of Gujarat High Court in the case Neomer Limited v. Government of India (1981 ELT 134) wherein their Lordship held that “it cannot be said that c.v. duty can be levied only if the article is produced or manufactured in India or that the production or manufacture of article in India is a condition precedent to the valid levy of the c.v. duty.”
11. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the said product i.e. Methyl Isocyanate which was imported after 1-3-1979 had it been manufactured in India would have attracted excise duty under item 68, C.E.T. and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 3(1) read with the explanation appended thereto c.v. duty was rightly levied upon this product by the Customs authorities. The question whether the levy of c.v. duty on goods the like of which are not manufactured in India is illegal and beyond the competence of the Union Legislature, cannot be raised before this Tribunal which is the creation of the Statute. This Tribunal has to interpret the Statute as it stands and it is beyond its competence to declare any provisions of the Statute as illegal.
12. We find no merits in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.