9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption from duty under Notification 103/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989. 2. Definition and scope of "newspaper establishment" under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. 3. Ownership and registration requirements for availing exemption. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to exemption from duty under Notification 103/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989: The appellants contested the denial of exemption from duty on Graphic Art Films under Notification 103/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989, arguing that they were the proprietors of the Patna edition of the newspaper 'AJ' and thus qualified as a "newspaper establishment" registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India. They provided additional evidence to support their claim, which was allowed by the Tribunal. However, the respondents argued that the appellants were only printers and publishers and not a "newspaper establishment" as per the exemption notification. The Tribunal concluded that the exemption was not applicable as the appellants did not fulfill the ownership requirement stipulated by the notification. 2. Definition and scope of "newspaper establishment" under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867: The appellants argued that as printers and publishers of the newspaper, they should be considered part of the "newspaper establishment" under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. They cited various sections of the Act to support their claim that the printer and publisher are integral to the registration process. However, the Tribunal noted that the Act primarily registers the newspaper, not the establishment, and the term "newspaper establishment" in the exemption notification implied a group of activities including ownership, editorial, printing, and publication functions. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants, being separate from the newspaper's ownership, did not constitute a "newspaper establishment" for the purposes of the exemption. 3. Ownership and registration requirements for availing exemption: The appellants claimed that the ownership of the Patna edition of 'AJ' had been transferred to them and that they were managing it on behalf of the owner. They argued that this should qualify them for the exemption. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the exemption notification required the newspaper establishment to be registered with the Registrar of Newspapers and to be owned by the same entity. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not the owners of the newspaper establishment and thus did not meet the criteria for exemption. The Tribunal also highlighted that the expenditure on the newspaper's editorial staff was not borne by the appellants, further indicating their limited role. Separate Judgment by S.L. Peeran: S.L. Peeran dissented, arguing that the notification's conditions were met as the appellants were in possession of the newspaper title and were registered as printers and publishers. He emphasized that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, did not require ownership for registration and that the notification aimed to benefit the "newspaper industry" without specifying ownership. Peeran concluded that the appellants should be granted the exemption, as they fulfilled the notification's requirements. Conclusion: The majority view rejected the appeal, concluding that the appellants did not qualify as a "newspaper establishment" under the exemption notification due to the lack of ownership and the limited scope of their role. The cross-objections filed by the respondents were also disposed of accordingly.
|
