9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2702/4-9-1981 and the respondents had claimed reassessment of the goods free of duty and these were replacements of the goods i.e. defective two wing rotors and these were exported to the suppliers under cover and free Shipping Bill No. 003595 dated 4th September, 1981. The respondents has claimed that the benefit of the Notification No. 80/70-Cus., dated 29-8-1970. The Assistant Collector did not extend the benefit of the said notification and had rejected refund claim. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The Collector (Appeals) had extended the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus., dated 29th August, 1970 after relied on the dictionary meanings of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Quality Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 447 where the Tribunal had held that the exemptions were admissible only if the goods were replacement of the individual s private personal property and not property of a firm. Shri Sohal has pleaded for the acceptance of the Appeal. 4. Shri A.N. Haksar, the learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, pleaded that he has relied on the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and has also referred to Order No. 128/90-B2, dated 19th December, 1989 in the case of SAIL v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta in Appeal No. C/311/83-B. Shri Haksar pleaded that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us, the importers are Good Year India Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The Tribunal had occasion to the similar matters in the case of Assistant Engineer, Posts Telegraphs Deptt. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi vide Order Nos. 216-217/898/B2 dated 6th July, 1989. And also in the case of Quality Steel Tubes Private Ltd., Kanpur v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 447. Para Nos. 3, 4 and 6 from the said judgment are reproduced below :- Para No. 3 : Regarding condition No. (i) the appellant s plea is that the defective articles, for which replacement had been received, was earlier imported. The learned Consultant has pleaded that the lower authorities have not interpreted the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose goods which have been imported by an individual as baggage or otherwise. Shri Santhanam, learned Consultant for the appellants in reply stated that notification should be read according to legislature s intent and interpretation should be such as would advance the object of the notification. He cited the following case-law in support of his plea: (i) 1983 (12) E.L.T. 24 (Delhi) - M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. U.O.I. and Others. (ii) 1983 (12) E.L.T. 34 (Mad.) - M/s. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. U.O.I and Others (iii) 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1017 (CEGAT) - M/s. Hercules Tyres and Rubber Industries, Rai, Sonepat (Haryana) v. CC E, Chandigarh . He also cited case-law to show a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods are imported as replacement of those which are the individual s private personal property and not of a firm. The case-law cited by the appellants in support of their plea that the notification should be so interpreted as to advance the intention of the framers of the notification does not help the appellants inasmuch as in the cases cited it has been clearly held that while interpreting the notification, there is no room for intendment and unless meanings flow from the clear language of notification the benefit cannot be given by reading the intention into it. The words used in the notification do not lend themselves to the interpretation as placed by the appellants on the wording of the notification. The lower authority s order, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
