DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

   DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANR.                                 A
                                        v.
                      UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                           SEPTEMBER 19, 1996

           [S.P. BHARUCHA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]                                B

        Customs Tariff Act:

         S. 3-Assessee imp01ting tyre cord grade wood plup from USA-Called
upon to pay additional duty thereort--Cliallenged before the Assistant Collec-
tor and thereafter before the High Court, but without success-On appeal,
                                                                                   c
held, where a like lllticle is not produced or manufactured in India additional
duty is required to be levied on the imp01ted article on the basis of the excise
duty leviable on the class or description of lllticles to which the imported
article belongs-Articles not elsewhere described under the residuary entry 68
fomz a class by themselves-Hence if a like article is not described in the         D
 Tllliff, additional duty is leviable 011 the imported article upon the basis of
the levy of excise duty under the provisions of Entry 68.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3400 of
1984.
                                                                                   E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.82 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 1381 of 1990.

        H.K. Puri for the Appellants.

        Joseph Vallappally and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.                 F
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

     A limited argument is addressed in this appeal that impugns the
judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan.
                                                                                   G
     The appellants manufacture tyre yarn cord and fabric for which
purpose they import tyre cord grade woodpulp from the United States of
America. The appellants were called upon to pay additional duty thereon
under the provisions of Sections 3 of the Customs Tariff Act.

        Among other contentions raised by the appellants was this : The said       H
                                    511
    512                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. ~

A woodpulp was not produced or manufactured in India. Under the terms of
    Section 3 additional duty had, therefore, to be calculated on the basis of
    the excise duty that would be leviable on the class or description of a~ticle ~
    to which the said woodpulp belonged. There was no entry in the Tariff that
    related to an article of the like of the said woodpulp. Entry -68, being a
B   residuary entry relating to no class or description of goods, did not apply.
    No additional duty was, therefore, leviable on the said woodpulp.

         The said contention was rejected by the Assistant Collt:ctor and by
    the High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellants.

            It is the only contention raised before us.
c
            Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, so far as it is relevant, reads
    thus:

              "S. 3.- Levy of Additional Duty equal to Excise Duty :
D             (1) Any article which is imported into India 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
E             value, the additional duty to which the imported article shall 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 manufac-
F             tured in india' means the excise duty for the time being in force
              which would be leviable on a like article if produced or manufac-
              tured in India, or if a like article is not so produced or manufac-
              tured, 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," ·
G
            It is the Explanation which is important. The expression "the excise
  duty for the time being leviable on the like article if produced or manufac-
  tured in India used in the body of sub-section (1) is explained to mean the
  excise duty for the time being in force (a) which would be leviable on a
H like article if produced or manufactured in Indian, or (b) if a like article
                  DELHI CLOTII AND GEN. MILLS v. U.0.1.                      513

is not produced or manufactured in India, the excise duty that would be             A
leviable on the class or description or articles to which the imported article
belongs.

      Where a like article is not produced or manufactured in India
additional duty is required to be levied on the imported article upon the
basis of the excise duty that is leviable on the class or description of articles   B
to which the imported article belongs. Articles which are not elsewhere
described, falling under the residuary Entry 68, form a class by themselves.
Hence, if a like article is not described in the Tariff, additional duty is
leviable on imported article upon the basis of the levy of excise duty under
the provisions of Entry 68.                ·
                                                                                    c
       The only contention raised before us is rejected.

       The appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

G.N.                                                         Appeal dismissed.