Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has come up with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the subject goods, namely, 5000 pieces of Taper Roller Bearings No. 32211 (of diameter 55 mm) in terms of the Order in Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 8-4-1994 being annexure 'F' to the writ petition. The writ petition arises in this manner.
(2.) The writ petitioner in due course of his business has imported 5000 pieces of Taper Roller Bearings No. 32211 (of diameter 55 mm) being the parts of power operated coal briquetting press machine for converting cellulosic waste materials into fuel briquettes from Czechoslovakia through their sole selling agent. After arrival of the consigned goods, the petitioner's clearing agent filed the necessary Bill of Entry bearing No. 1005 for home consumption on 16th March, 1993 along with other relevant documents for release of the goods. The case of the petitioner is that the Customs authorities denied the exemption benefit to the petitioner by classifying the said goods under Tariff Heading No. 8482.20 by holding, amongst others that, "The exemption can be given only when the bearings are used in briquetting press which has been imported now or earlier. The notification benefit is not applicable when bearing are to be used for manufacturing of briquetting press in India." Against the said order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on 22-6-1993, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector of Customs (Appeals) being satisfied with the contention of the writ petitioner by his order dated 30-8-1993 set aside the order dated 22nd June, 1993 and remanded the case for de novo examination by the Assistant Collector of Customs after following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jain Engineering v. Collector of Customs, Bombay stating that "A provision in a notification should normally be interpreted in its ordinary, natural and grammatical sense. It is not permissible to import any notion of policy into it. Again an order was passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on 1st November, 1993, refusing to accept the direction given by the appellate authority by its order dated 30th August, 1993 and the petitioner again preferred an appeal against the said order dated 1-11-1993 before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The said appeal was allowed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) by a reasoned order dated 8th April, 1994, making the following observations "In view of the ratio established in the cited judicial pronouncements discussed hereinbefore I am at a loss to support the view of the original authority in his impugned order dated 1-11-1993. Accordingly, I set aside the said order and allow the appeal. The lower authority will classify the impugned goods under Tariff sub-heading 8482.20 as usual but assess duty extending the benefit of Notification No. 113/81-Cus., dated 23-4-1981 as amended."
(3.) While arriving at his aforesaid finding the Collector of Customs (Appeals) also held that "In a taxing statute one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used.";