{"id":131486,"date":"2001-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001"},"modified":"2015-08-15T15:49:21","modified_gmt":"2015-08-15T10:19:21","slug":"collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001","title":{"rendered":"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Kumar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.N. Kirpal, Brijesh Kumar.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 863-864  of  1992\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   APPELLANT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. PRESTO INDUSTRIES\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/02\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. Kirpal &amp; Brijesh Kumar.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J  U  D\t G  M  E  N  T<br \/>\nBRIJESH KUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    The\t question  that\t falls for  consideration  in  these<br \/>\nappeals\t is  as to whether or not, the respondent  has\tbeen<br \/>\nrightly\t given\tbenefit of Notification No.  16\/83-CE  dated<br \/>\n11.2.1983,  issued by the Central Government under Rule 8(1)<br \/>\nof  the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in regard to the payment<br \/>\nof  additional custom duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs<br \/>\nTariff\tAct,  1975,  on\t the waste  and\t scrap\tof  imported<br \/>\nCellulose Acetate sheets.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\thave  heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi,\t learned  Additional<br \/>\nSolicitor   General   for   the\t  appellant  and   Shri\t  V.<br \/>\nLakshmikumaran, learned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t  respondent,  M\/s.   Presto   Industries,   is\t  an<br \/>\nindustrial  unit manufacturing combs and brushes, in  Kandla<br \/>\nFree Trade Zone, from the imported Cellulose Acetate sheets.<br \/>\nOn  certain  given  conditions, exemption  from\t payment  of<br \/>\nexcise\tduty  is admissible to the manufacturer in the\tFree<br \/>\nTrade  Zone.   So far it relates to the resultant waste\t and<br \/>\nscrap  of  the\timported  raw  material,  namely,  Cellulose<br \/>\nAcetate\t sheets, Customs Duty as well as additional duty  is<br \/>\npayable\t on  the  scrap being cleared for  home\t consumption<br \/>\noutside\t  the  Free  Trade   Zone.   Undisputedly,  on\t two<br \/>\nclearances  of\tthe scrap, Custom Duty was assessed and\t the<br \/>\nsame  was  paid by the respondent.  It was,  however,  later<br \/>\ndiscovered  during  the\t audit\t that  while  assessing\t the<br \/>\nliability,  the respondent had been wrongly given benefit of<br \/>\nNotification  No.   16\/83-CE dated 11.2.1983 and  additional<br \/>\nduty under Section 3 (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was<br \/>\nnot levied.  The duty was found to be short paid.  Thus, two<br \/>\nDemand\tNotices\t under Section 28 of the Customs  Act,\t1962<br \/>\nwere  issued  in respect of two clearances,  namely,  Demand<br \/>\nNotice\tNo.FIZ\/Cus\/Demand\/87-\/7545\/73 dated 26.6.1989 for  a<br \/>\nsum\tof     Rs.60,480\/-\t   and\t   Demand     Notice<br \/>\nNo.FIZ\/Cus\/Demand\/85-86\/1347  dated 16.10.1989 for a sum  of<br \/>\nRs.8870.40.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t aforesaid  two\t demands for  additional  duty\twere<br \/>\nconfirmed  by the Assistant Collector (Custom), Kandla\tFree<br \/>\nTrade  Zone  by\t order\tdated 22.6.1989 for  a\tsum  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n68076.40  and  by  order dated 16.10.1989 for a sum  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n8870.40\t holding that the Duty was short levied and  benefit<br \/>\nof Notification No.16\/83-CE dated 11.2.1983 was wrongly made<br \/>\nadmissible  to\tthe respondent.\t It was also held  that\t the<br \/>\nwaste and scrap item of Cellulose Acetate sheets was covered<br \/>\nunder  Tariff Item No.15-A(1), explanation iii\u00a9 as  provided<br \/>\nin  the\t foot  note to Item No.15-A of\tthe  Central  Excise<br \/>\nTariff.\t  The exemption from payment of Central Excise\tDuty<br \/>\nwas  held  to  be admissible only on fulfilment\t of  certain<br \/>\nconditions  as\tcontained  in the  Notification\t No.16\/83-CE<br \/>\nitself.\t Thus, the additional duty was rightly demanded over<br \/>\nand  above  to\twhatever  was\tassessed  and  paid  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   The respondent preferred an appeal against the<br \/>\norder  of the Assistant Collector (Customs) to the Collector<br \/>\nCustoms\t (Appeals) who by order dated 12.3.1990 allowed\t the<br \/>\nappeal\tholding that the benefit of Notification No.16\/83-CE<br \/>\nwas  admissible\t to the respondent.  The Revenue  challenged<br \/>\nthe  order passed by the Collector Customs (Appeals)  before<br \/>\nthe  Customs,  Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate  Tribunal<br \/>\n(for  short, `CEGAT).  The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by<br \/>\norder dated 12.7.1991.\tHence the appeals by the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Collector  (Appeals) took the view that  the  whole<br \/>\nDuty  of  Excise,  leviable under Section 3 of\tthe  Central<br \/>\nExcise\tAct,  1944 is exempted in respect of scrap for\thome<br \/>\nconsumption  outside the Free Trade Zone, under Notification<br \/>\nNo.16\/83-CE,  therefore, no additional Duty in the nature of<br \/>\ncountervailing\tduty  was  liable to be paid.  It  was\talso<br \/>\nfound  that the respondent had paid the Customs Duty on\t the<br \/>\nscrap  as  required  by\t Clause (b) to the  Proviso  to\t the<br \/>\nNotification No.16\/83-CE.  The CEGAT upheld the order passed<br \/>\nby  the\t Collector  of\tCustoms (Appeals)  finding  that  no<br \/>\nadditional  duty  of customs would be payable  where  Excise<br \/>\nDuty  is exempt under a Notification issued under Rule\t8(1)<br \/>\nof  the Excise Rules 1944.  It also relied upon the decision<br \/>\nin  M.R.F.  Limited versus Union of India and others, though<br \/>\non facts it stands on a different footing.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The case of the assessee further is that since no Excise<br \/>\nDuty  is  payable, no additional duty under Section 3(1)  of<br \/>\nthe  Customs  Tariff Act, 1975 can be levied  as  additional<br \/>\nduty  could  only be equal to the Excise Duty for  the\ttime<br \/>\nbeing  leviable on a like article if produced in India or in<br \/>\ncase  it  is not so produced the excise duty which would  be<br \/>\nleviable  on  the class or description of articles to  which<br \/>\nthe imported articles belongs.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t main stress on behalf of the appellant is that\t the<br \/>\nsecond\t condition   as\t contained   in\t  the\tNotification<br \/>\nNo.16\/83-CE  has  not  been fulfilled hence  exemption\tfrom<br \/>\nExcise\tDuty would not be available to the respondent.\tThat<br \/>\nbeing  the  position,  the additional duty  as\tleviable  is<br \/>\nliable\tto  be\tlevied and paid under Section 3 (1)  of\t the<br \/>\nCustoms Tariff Act, 1975.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Before  entering  into  the\t  discussion,  it  would  be<br \/>\nappropriate  to\t peruse\t the provisions as  contained  under<br \/>\nSection\t 3  of\tthe  Customs Tariff Act,  1975\tas  well  as<br \/>\nNotification  No.16\/83-CE  issued  under Rule 8 (1)  of\t the<br \/>\nExcise\tRules,\t1944.  Section 3 of the Customs\t Tariff\t Act<br \/>\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>    SECTION  3.\t  Levy of additional duty equal\t to  excise<br \/>\nuty.- (1) Any article which is imported into India shall, in<br \/>\naddition,  be  liable to a duty (hereafter in  this  section<br \/>\nreferred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty<br \/>\nfor the time being leviable on a like article if produced or<br \/>\nmanufactured  in  India\t and if such excise duty on  a\tlike<br \/>\narticle\t is  leviable  at any percentage of its\t value,\t the<br \/>\nadditional  duty  to which the imported article shall be  so<br \/>\nliable\tshall be calculated at that percentage of the  value<br \/>\nof the imported article.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Explanation.-  In  this  section,  the  expression\tthe<br \/>\nexcise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if<br \/>\nproduced or manufactured in India means the excise duty for<br \/>\nthe  time  being in force which would be leviable on a\tlike<br \/>\narticle\t if produced or manufactured in India, or, if a like<br \/>\narticle\t is not so produced or manufactured, which would  be<br \/>\nleviable  on  the class or description of articles to  which<br \/>\nthe  imported  article\tbelongs,  and  where  such  duty  is<br \/>\nleviable at different rates, the highest duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) ..\n<\/p>\n<p>    (3)\t If  the  Central Government is\t satisfied  that  is<br \/>\nnecessary  in  the public interest to levy on  any  imported<br \/>\narticle\t [whether  on  such article duty is  leviable  under<br \/>\nsub-section  (1)  or  not]  such additional  duty  as  would<br \/>\ncounter-balance\t  the  excise  duty   leviable\ton  any\t raw<br \/>\nmaterials, components and ingredients of the same nature as,<br \/>\nor  similar to those, used in the production or\t manufacture<br \/>\nof  such  article, it may, by notification in  the  Official<br \/>\nGazette,  direct  that\tsuch   imported\t article  shall,  in<br \/>\naddition,  be liable to an additional duty representing such<br \/>\nportion\t of the excise duty leviable on such raw  materials,<br \/>\ncomponents  and\t ingredients  as,  in either  case,  may  be<br \/>\ndetermined  by rules made by the Central Government in\tthis<br \/>\nbehalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4) ..\n<\/p>\n<p>(5) ..\n<\/p>\n<p>    (6)\t The  provisions  of the Customs Act,  1962  (52  of<br \/>\n1962),\tand  the  rules\t and  regulations  made\t thereunder,<br \/>\nincluding those relating to drawbacks, refunds and exemption<br \/>\nfrom  duties,  shall,  so far as may be, apply to  the\tduty<br \/>\nchargeable  under this section as they apply in relation  to<br \/>\nthe duties leviable under that Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    A  perusal\tof Section 3 (1) of the Customs\t Tariff\t Act<br \/>\nquoted\tabove shows that on any article imported into India,<br \/>\na  duty\t in addition may be levied to be called\t `additional<br \/>\nduty  equal to the excise duty for the time being  leviable<br \/>\nas  may be in force on an item manufactured in India and  in<br \/>\ncase  it  is not so manufactured, as may be leviable on\t the<br \/>\nclass  or  description\tof articles to\twhich  the  imported<br \/>\narticle belong.\t It is also clear that the `additional duty<br \/>\nis in addition to the Customs Duty levied under Customs Act,<br \/>\n1962  on  any  article which is imported  into\tIndia.\t The<br \/>\nCustoms Tariff Act provides for the rates at which duties of<br \/>\nCustoms are leviable under Customs Act, 1962 as specified in<br \/>\nthe  two  Schedules.  The additional duty is in addition  to<br \/>\nwhat  is  specified in the first and second schedule of\t the<br \/>\nCustoms\t Tariff\t Act.\tIt can be said that  first  part  of<br \/>\nSection\t 3  (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is  charging<br \/>\nprovision  for the purposes of imposition of additional duty<br \/>\nand  the latter part is in relation to quantification of the<br \/>\nadditional  duty  equal\t to Excise Duty.  In regard  to\t the<br \/>\nquestion as to whether Section 3 (1) is a charging provision<br \/>\nfor  additional\t duty or not, it was held by a\tThree  Judge<br \/>\nBench  of  this\t Court\tin the case of\tKhandelwal  Metal  &amp;<br \/>\nEngineering Works that Section 3 (1) cannot be said to be an<br \/>\nindependent charging Section.  It was held to be an extended<br \/>\nprovision  of  Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962  for\t the<br \/>\npurposes of additional duty.  Later on however this question<br \/>\nagain  came  to\t be  considered in  the\t case  of  Hyderabad<br \/>\nIndustries  Ltd.  before a Constitution Bench of this  Court<br \/>\nand  it\t was held that Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act is  a<br \/>\ncharging  provision  for additional duty.  It has also\tbeen<br \/>\nheld  that  under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff  Act,\t the<br \/>\nadditional duty is not called a counter-vailing duty, it may<br \/>\nthough\tresult\tin serving such purpose for manufacturer  of<br \/>\nsuch  articles\tin  India.  It is to be\t noticed  here\tthat<br \/>\nSub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act makes<br \/>\na   provision  for  levy  of   additional  duty\t  as   would<br \/>\ncounter-balance the Excise Duty leviable on any raw material<br \/>\nwhich\tmay  be\t over  and   above  any\t duty  levied  under<br \/>\nSub-section  (1).  The said provision viz.  Section 3(3)  of<br \/>\nCustoms\t Tariff\t Act  makes  it clear  that  in\t the  public<br \/>\ninterest  an  additional duty under Sub-section (3)  can  be<br \/>\nlevied\tas  would counter-balance the excise duty.  It is  a<br \/>\nprovision independent of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the<br \/>\nCustoms\t Tariff\t Act  taking care of  counter  balancing  of<br \/>\nExcise Duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\tmay  now advert to the Notification  No.16\/83-CE  to<br \/>\nfind  out  whether  conditions\tlaid in Clause\t(b)  of\t the<br \/>\nProviso\t of the said Notification has been fulfilled or not.<br \/>\nThe Notification No.16\/83-CE provides as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>Kandla Free Trade Zone<\/p>\n<p>      In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- rule\t(1)<br \/>\nof  rule  8  of the Central Excise Rules, 1944\tthe  Central<br \/>\nGovernment hereby exempts scrap or waste material arising in<br \/>\nthe  course of production or manufacture of any goods in the<br \/>\nKandla Free Trade Zone, from the whole of the duty of excise<br \/>\nleviable  thereon under section 3 of the Central Excise\t and<br \/>\nSalt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944):\n<\/p>\n<p>    Provided that:-\n<\/p>\n<p>    (a)\t such  scrap or waste material is out of  any  goods<br \/>\nbrought into the said zone from a place outside India, and<\/p>\n<p>    (b)\t such  scrap or waste material is cleared  for\thome<br \/>\nconsumption  outside  the said zone on payment of duties  of<br \/>\ncustoms leviable thereon under any law for the time being in<br \/>\nforce.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t whole of the excise duty leviable under the Central<br \/>\nExcise\t&amp; Salt Act, 1944 is liable to be exempted, on  scrap<br \/>\nor  waste arising in the course of manufacture of any  goods<br \/>\nin  the\t Kandla\t Free  Trade Zone, which  is  imported\tfrom<br \/>\noutside India and it is cleared for home consumption outside<br \/>\nthe  zone  on payment of duties of customs leviable  thereon<br \/>\nunder  any  law\t for  the  time being  in  force..   So\t far<br \/>\ncondition  provided under clause (a) of the proviso there is<br \/>\nno  dispute.  But as it relates to fulfilment of Clause\t (b)<br \/>\nto  proviso,  it is in dispute.\t Admittedly additional\tduty<br \/>\nleviable  under\t Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act\t has<br \/>\nnot  been  paid.  Their case is that basic customs duty\t has<br \/>\nbeen  paid which fulfils the requirement.  The\tNotification<br \/>\nhowever\t requires  payment of duties of customs under  any<br \/>\nlaw  for  the  time  being in force.   The  additional\tduty<br \/>\nleviable  under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the  Customs<br \/>\nTariff\tAct  is not described or called\t as  counter-vailing<br \/>\nduty as observed in the case of Hyderabad Industries (supra)<br \/>\nas  well  as in the case of Khandelwal Metal  &amp;\t Engineering<br \/>\nWorks  (supra)\tdespite the purpose whichever it may  serve.<br \/>\nThere  is  a  specific provision under\tSub-section  (3)  of<br \/>\nSection\t 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, quoted  earlier,<br \/>\nproviding  for levy of additional duty, whether on such item<br \/>\nadditional  duty  under\t Sub- section (1) of  Section  3  is<br \/>\nleviable  or  not, to counter-balance the Excise Duty.\t The<br \/>\nclause\t(b)  to\t the proviso to\t the  Notification  16\/83-CE<br \/>\nprovides  for  clearance of all duties of  customs  leviable<br \/>\nunder  any  law\t for the time being in force.  It  does\t not<br \/>\nconfine\t to  payment  of  customs duty\tleviable  under\t the<br \/>\nCustoms\t Act, 1962 alone.  Therefore, additional duty levied<br \/>\nunder  Section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act shall also have to<br \/>\nbe  cleared  before  claiming\tbenefit\t under\tNotification<br \/>\nNo.16\/83-CE.   In  the\tcase of\t Hyderabad  Industries\tLtd.<br \/>\n(supra),  in  paragraph 14 of the Judgment, it is held\tthat<br \/>\nthere  are  different  types of Customs\t Duty  levied  under<br \/>\ndifferent  Acts\t or Rules.  It includes Duty  under  Section<br \/>\n3(1)  of  the  Customs Tariff Act.  The para  14  is  quoted<br \/>\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>    14.\t There are different types of customs duties levied<br \/>\nunder different Acts or Rules.\tSome of them are:\n<\/p>\n<p>    (a) a duty of customs chargeable under Section 12 of the<br \/>\nCustoms Act, 1962;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (b)\t the duty in question, namely, under Section 3(1) of<br \/>\nthe Customs Tariff Act;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (c)\t additional duty levied on raw materials, components<br \/>\nand  ingredients  under Section 3(3) of the  Customs  Tariff<br \/>\nAct;  and<\/p>\n<p>    (d)\t duty  chargeable under Section 9-A of\tthe  Customs<br \/>\nTariff Act, 1975.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act,\t1975<br \/>\nare  two separate independent statutes.\t Merely because\t the<br \/>\nincidence  of tax under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act,<br \/>\n1975 arises on the import of the articles into India it does<br \/>\nnot  necessarily  mean\tthat the Customs Tariff\t Act  cannot<br \/>\nprovide\t for the charging of a duty which is independent  of<br \/>\nthe customs duty leviable under the Customs Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Since  it  is found that the respondent did not pay\t the<br \/>\nadditional duty as leviable under Sub-section (1) of Section<br \/>\n3  of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, it failed to comply with<br \/>\nthe  condition as contained in Clause (b) to the proviso  to<br \/>\nthe  Notification No.16\/83-CE dated 11.2.1983.\tThe onus  of<br \/>\nproof  of  fulfilment  of  condition  subject  to  which  an<br \/>\nexemption  may be admissible lies on the assessee or upon  a<br \/>\nparty  claiming benefit under the Notification as also\theld<br \/>\nin  the\t case of Motiram Tolaram and another .\tSo  far\t the<br \/>\nquestion   of  construing  an\texemption  Notification\t  is<br \/>\nconcerned,  such Notifications are to be strictly construed.<br \/>\nWhere a condition precedent is not fulfilled before claiming<br \/>\nany exemption, such benefit would not be admissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tthe  result it is found that due to  non-payment  of<br \/>\nadditional  duty as prescribed under Section 3(1) of Customs<br \/>\nTariff\tAct,  the respondent would not be entitled  for\t the<br \/>\nbenefit\t of  exemption from Excise Duty\t under\tNotification<br \/>\nNo.16\/83-CE.\tIt  was\t wrongly   made\t admissible  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tview  of what has been discussed above, the  appeals<br \/>\nare  allowed  and  the\torders passed by  the  Collector  of<br \/>\nCustoms\t (Appeals)  and\t CEGAT are set aside and  the  order<br \/>\npassed\tby the Assistant Collector of Customs are  restored.<br \/>\nThere would, however, be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(B.N. Kirpal)<br \/>\n(Brijesh Kumar)<\/p>\n<p>    New Delhi<br \/>\n    February 15, 2001<\/p>\n<p>1987 (32) E.L.T.  465 (Madras) AIR 1985 SC 1211<\/p>\n<p>1999) 5 SCC 15 (1999) 6 SCC 375 1<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001 Author: B Kumar Bench: B.N. Kirpal, Brijesh Kumar. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 863-864 of 1992 PETITIONER: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPELLANT Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. PRESTO INDUSTRIES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/02\/2001 BENCH: B.N. Kirpal &amp; Brijesh Kumar. JUDGMENT: J U D [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-15T10:19:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\\\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-15T10:19:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2551,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001\",\"name\":\"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\\\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-15T10:19:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\\\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-15T10:19:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001","datePublished":"2001-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-15T10:19:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001"},"wordCount":2551,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001","name":"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-15T10:19:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-appellant-vs-ms-presto-industries-on-15-february-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collector Of Customs Appellant vs M\/S. Presto Industries on 15 February, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131486"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131486\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}