9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of the term "private personal property" in Notification 80/70 for exemption from customs duty.
Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the interpretation of Notification 80/70 regarding the exemption of customs duty for the replacement of defective goods. The case revolved around the import of an Oscillator Tube that failed during the guarantee period, leading to a replacement tube being supplied by the manufacturer at no charge. 2. The appellant, a public limited company, claimed the benefit under the notification, arguing that the replaced tube should be considered their private personal property. The appellant's consultant contended that the term "personal" should be understood in the context of the Central Clauses Act, emphasizing that a company is also a legal person. However, the department's representative argued that the notification only covers goods imported by an individual and cited the definition of "personal" from Black's Law Dictionary to support their stance. 3. The Tribunal deliberated on the meaning of "private personal property" as used in the notification. It noted that the term "personal" refers to belonging to an individual, while "private" pertains to a private individual, as per the definitions provided by Black's Law Dictionary and the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The Tribunal concluded that the exemption under Notification 80/70 applies only when the goods imported for replacement are the private personal property of an individual, not a firm. 4. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the notification should be interpreted to align with the intention of the framers, emphasizing that the language of the notification must be clear for any benefit to be granted. It held that the wording of the notification did not support the appellant's interpretation, and therefore, upheld the lower authority's decision to deny the benefit of the exemption. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi interpreted the term "private personal property" in Notification 80/70 to mean goods belonging to an individual in a private capacity, excluding firms. The Tribunal emphasized the need for clarity in the language of notifications for granting benefits and rejected the appellant's plea for a broader interpretation based on legislative intent. As a result, the appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay was dismissed.
|
