Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 1991 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1991 (4) TMI 129 - HC - Customs

Issues:
Refund of customs duties on imported goods under Exemption Notification No. 29 of 1979.

Analysis:
The petitioner imported various items and filed refund applications claiming exemption under Exemption Notification No. 29 of 1979. Initially, the refund claims were dismissed as time-barred, leading to the petitioner filing writ petitions. Subsequently, the respondents agreed to reconsider the refund applications both on the grounds of time-bar and merits.

The refund applications were rejected by the 3rd respondent on the basis that the imported goods, including glass beads, snap fasteners, and zip fasteners, were not exclusively used as embellishments for leatherwear. The Exemption Notification in question exempts goods "used in the leather industry," specifically mentioning "Buckles and other embellishments for footwear."

The impugned order considered the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and the Government of India's views on the applicability of the Exemption Notification to the imported goods. It was noted that end-use was a crucial factor in determining eligibility for the exemption. The order highlighted that glass beads were used in artificial jewelry and not solely as embellishments for leatherwear, while snap and zip fasteners were deemed functional fasteners rather than decorative embellishments.

In the petitioner's defense, reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the interpretation of statutory provisions. The Court clarified that the phrase "for use" in the Exemption Notification indicated goods intended for use, not necessarily those actually used in a specific manner. However, the Court concluded that the imported goods in question were not exclusively used as embellishments for footwear in the leather industry, supporting the 3rd respondent's decision.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the 3rd respondent's decision as reasonable based on the evidence presented. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the refund amount, previously deposited in Court, was authorized for withdrawal by the respondents with accrued interest, subject to a specified timeframe.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates