1999 (8) TMI 367 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellants are entitled to claim a refund under Notification No. 148/88 for out-board motors imported for fishermen.

Analysis:
The appeals revolve around the eligibility of the appellants to claim a refund under Notification No. 148/88 for out-board motors imported, specifically whether the appellants, not falling under State Fisheries Corporation or Fisheries Co-operative Federation, can benefit from the exemption. The authorities found that the appellants do not meet the criteria specified in the Notification, which limits the exemption to specific entities. The appellants argued that the import was intended for fishermen, fulfilling the Notification's intention, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing broad interpretation of exemption notifications. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the Notification's specificity restricts the benefit to named entities, relying on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the claimant's burden to prove eligibility for exemption.

The Tribunal considered the arguments and examined the Notification's terms and the cited judgments. It concluded that the Notification's benefit is exclusive to the named importers and cannot be extended to those outside the specified categories. As the appellants admitted they do not fall within the named importers, the Tribunal held that the benefit cannot be granted to them. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court judgments cited by the appellants, noting they apply when the Notification is not specific to any importer, unlike the present case. Since the Notification lists specific importers and the appellants are not among them, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the Notification's specificity precludes extending the benefit to non-named importers.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the appellants are not entitled to claim a refund under Notification No. 148/88 for out-board motors as they do not fall within the specific categories of importers mentioned in the Notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of the Notification is limited to named importers and cannot be extended to those outside the specified entities. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Notification's explicit terms and the lack of eligibility of the appellants as per the specified criteria, leading to the rejection of the appeal.