9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They are engaged in manufacture and sale of telecommunication equipment. They have a Research and Development Unit/Lab, as a part of their undertaking. They imported certain articles which, they claimed, were being used in the said R D Unit. The dispute in these appeals is whether they were entitled to import the said articles free of customs duty under exemption Notification No. 70/81-Customs, dated 26-3-1981. 3. We had an occasion earlier to deal with the same issue in another batch of appeals filed by the same appellants. Our earlier order reported at (1987) 30 E.L.T. 523 (Tribunal). In the said order, we had formulated the following three issues for our consideration :- (1) Whether the R D Unit of the appellants was a research ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or import of goods meant for their R D Unit. Their internal working was explained as follows. The Chief Engineer (Research) of the R D Unit prepared a list of the goods required to be imported. The same officer also acted in a dual capacity as the Purchase Officer of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries. In the said capacity as the Purchase Officer, he placed an indent on the foreign supplier. The indent was, no doubt, placed in the name of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries and, consequently, the foreign supplier issued the invoice also in the name of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries. However, the order number mentioned in the import invoice had the prefix R which indicated that the order was for research. In some of the bills of entry, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporter for the subject consignments should be decided strictly in accordance with the statutory definition of Section 2(26) read with Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. He supported the earlier conclusion of the Bench that the imports were not by a Research Institution but by a commercial undertaking. 7. Before proceeding with the discussion, it would be worthwhile noticing our earlier conclusions on this point. We reproduce below paragraph 8 of our earlier order: * * * * * 8. We have given the matter our earnest consideration once again in the light of the fresh documents filed and points made by the appellants. All that the fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by such importer on high sea sale basis, it also follows that the import invoice should be in the name of the importer. The import invoice has to be submitted alongwith the bill of entry. This is also a statutory requirement of Section 46. In terms of the statutory provisions of this section, read with inclusive definition of Section 2(26) of the Act, the question as to who is the importer has, therefore, to be decided in the context of who signed and filed the bill of entry and in whose name the import invoice is. In the cases before us, there is no doubt that the import invoice as well as the bill of entry were in the name of M/s. I.T.I. only. The name of the R D Unit did not figure anywhere therein. The abbreviation R at the beginn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D Unit and that M/s. I.T.I, acted only as a conduit. The position as on the record is that the importations were by M/s. I.T.I. only. 10. We do not agree with the appellants pleading that in the formulation by or against the order of or by or on behalf of , the underlined words are superfluous. We have discussed this point already in our earlier order and we find no reason to change our view. It is a well accepted principle of interpretation that no words are superfluous in a piece of legislation and every word has to be given its due meaning. Therefore, when, in place of the words in the earlier notification imported by or against the order of the Research Institution , the present notification used the modified expression imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
