9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the R&D Unit of the appellant qualifies as a research institution. 2. Whether the R&D Unit was engaged in any commercial activity. 3. Whether the articles in question were imported by the said R&D Unit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the R&D Unit of the appellant qualifies as a research institution: The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant, recognizing the R&D Unit as a research institution. The Tribunal referred to various definitions and judicial interpretations of the term "institution" to conclude that a body need not have a separate legal status to be considered an institution. The emphasis was on the purpose behind the establishment of the body. The R&D Unit of the appellant was recognized as a research institution eligible for benefits under earlier notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance and the Department of Science and Technology. The Tribunal found no basis for the Revenue's argument that a research institution should have a separate legal status. Thus, it was held that the R&D Unit of the appellant was a research institution in its own right. 2. Whether the R&D Unit was engaged in any commercial activity: The Tribunal initially concluded that the R&D Unit was not engaged in any commercial activity, supported by certificates from the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Telecommunications. However, upon further scrutiny, it was revealed that the R&D expenses were reimbursed by the P&T Department, indicating commercial engagement. The Tribunal examined the profit and loss account of the R&D Unit, which showed significant income receipts and recoverable R&D expenses from the P&T Department. This led to the conclusion that the R&D Unit was indeed engaged in commercial activity, contrary to the earlier findings. 3. Whether the articles in question were imported by the said R&D Unit: The Tribunal found that the imports were made by M/s. Indian Telephone Industries (ITI) and not by the R&D Unit. The Bills of Entry and import invoices listed ITI as the importer, with no mention of the R&D Unit. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory requirement that the importer must be named in the Bill of Entry and the import invoice. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the corporate body could import goods on behalf of the R&D Unit without indicating the R&D Unit's name in the import documents. The Tribunal reiterated that the notification required direct importation by a research institution, and since ITI was the importer, the conditions of the exemption notification were not satisfied. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not meet the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 70/81-Cus., dated 26th March 1981. The R&D Unit was engaged in commercial activity, and the imports were made by ITI, not the R&D Unit. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the benefits of the notification, leading to the dismissal of all 99 appeals.
|
