Ranganathan, J. - (1.) These three appeals under S. 130-E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 raise the same issue. They are therefore disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The respondent - M/s. K. Mohan and Co. - imported, from Japan, "metallised polyester films" under an import licence dated 14-6-1978. The goods were admittedly in the shape of film rolls several metres long. They were cleared on payment of customs duty leviable under the Customs Act, 1962 (CA) as well as the additional duty of customs (or countervailing duty) leviable under S. 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA). Subsequently, the respondent firm made three applications for the refund of the amount of the additional duty of customs paid by it. The claim for refund was based on the terms of a notification of exemption issued under S. 25(l) of the CA. Under notification No. 228/76 dated 2-8-1976, an exemption from the customs duty payable under S. 3 of the CTA was granted in respect of "articles made of plastics, all sorts, but excluding those specified in the table annexed hereto and falling within Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975)". The annexed table excepted the following items from the purview of the exemption: "Tubes, rods, sheets, foils, sticks, other rectangular or profile shapes, whether laminated or not, and whether rigid or flexible including tubings and polyvinyl chloride sheets". Notification No. 443 dated 29-11-76 omitted the words of notification No. 228 which have been underlined above but left the main notification otherwise untouched.
(3.) The assessee's claim for refund was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the goods imported by the respondent were articles made of plastics. But they were 'films' and not one of the categories of articles enumerated in the table. In reaching its conclusion, the Tribunal , followed the decisions, of the Madras High Court in Precise Impex P. Ltd. v. Collector, (1985) 21 ELT 84, of the Calcutta High Court in Continental Marketing P. Ltd. v. Union, (1987) 28 ELT 11 and of the Bombay High Court in A. V. Jain v. Union, (1987) 29 ELT 872. The Tribunal also referred to its own earlier decisions in Export India Corpn. P. Ltd. v. Collector and Collector v. Fancy Dyeing and Printing Works, Bombay. The Collector of Customs is aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal and hence these appeals. There are three appeals as there were three applications for refund by the assessee in respect of different periods.;