9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which is specified in the said First Schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 30 per cent. ad valorem and from the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act. 3. The appellants claims to be a small scale enterprenuer partnership firm said to have been engaged in printing work since 1979. They stated that not being able to afford a new machine, they imported a second hand four colour offset printing machine, Solna 425 with its accessories and entered Bill of Entry on 1-3-1988 in the Bombay Customs House in terms of the provisions of Section 46 read with Section 15(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. On this very day, the said notification was issued exempting the said machineries on the conditions stated therein. In view of this notification, the importer did not clear the goods, but took such steps to get registered with Registrar of Newspapers for India appointed under Section 19A of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 of an English weekly titled as Industrial Tattler . He also submitted a letter dated 23-3-1988 issued from the same office recommending grant of concessional rate of duty under par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r not being a Newspaper Establishment and hence failing to fulfil the basic provisions of the Notification that the goods should be imported by a Newspaper Establishment and that such an establishment should be registered with Registrar of Newspaper for India . 4. As regards the recommendatory letter dated 23-3-1988 issued from the office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India, the Learned Deputy Collector has held that para 288(1) of Current Hand Book of Import Export Procedures pertains to Project Import and that the importer has neither fulfilled any of those conditions nor has sought clearance under the provisions of the Project Import and hence such a recommendatory letter is not admissible. 5. The Learned Collector in the impugned order has also noted the fact that the importer had made the declaration before the Deputy Commissioner of Police for registration of their printing press as a Newspaper Establishment on 11-3-1988 and such registration was granted to them by the Registrar of Newspapers on 21-3-1988. He has held that it clearly shows that when the machine was imported the appellants were neither a Newspaper Establishment nor were registered with the Regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the imported goods and importer the machine was imported goods between 1-3-1988 and the date of clearance was on 9-9-1988 and therefore, in this period the appellant was importer in relation to the said imported goods and hence there is no bar in granting the benefit for home consumption. It is stated that the date of clearance should be taken for considering the terms of the notification and as on that date the terms of notification has been complied with and hence the benefit of notification cannot be denied. It is stated that the date of Bill of Entry is not relevant in such case and Section 15(1)(a) does not come into effect. It is also stated that the notification having been issued in public interest, therefore, the denial of the benefit is inconsistent with the public purpose sought to be served by the Legislature through the Central Government as a matter of policy. Reliance has been placed on the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pieco Electronics and Electricals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) = 1997 (2) SCC 220 to plead that the exemption notification has to be read plainly as an ordinary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter Newspaper Establishments. 9. The Learned Advocate supplementing the arguments raised in the written submissions also submitted that the status of the importer is not doubted but they being a Newspaper Establishment before clearance has been challenged. He submits that the importer had brought the registration certificate and also shown the proof of publication of the paper before clearance hence the benefit cannot be denied. He submitted that the appellants were in the printing business for a long time and before clearance they had registered as a Newspaper Establishment, obtained the certificate and therefore, the importer had complied with the terms of notification, hence the benefit cannot be denied as the status of the importer under the Act continued till the clearance of the goods. He submits that Section 15(1)(a) also does not bar the grant of benefit as the duty is not disturbed but the notification which was already in existence is being made operational, on the date of clearance. The rates of duties have not varied after filing of the Bill of Entry by either amendment of Tariff or by withdrawal of the notification. Therefore, the approach of the authorities is tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants claimed to be engaged in the printing work since 1979 and they intended to start publication of a small newspaper and as they were not in a position to afford a new machine, they imported second hand four colour offset printing machine Solna 425 with its accessories. It is their contention that on the date of the presentation of the Bill of Entry, the notification was brought into effect and immediately they took steps to get the registration with the Registrar of Newspapers and also published English weekly titled as Industrial Tattler . They have produced all the necessary certificates and also the copies of the published weeklies before the goods were assessed and cleared. It is their contention that they were holding import licence for importing these goods. They have relied on the certificate No. 1653 dated 19-3-1982 from the Directorate of Industries, Delhi Administration, Delhi, declaring their unit as a Small Scale Industry. The unit was at the material time undertaking job work printing. Hence it is their contention that they satisfy the condition of their being a Newspaper Establishment. It is their plea that the Government s intention to grant exemption to sm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment is denied the exemption. This will act as a discrimination against an importer who has not chosen to warehouse the goods, when, in fact, the rate of duty has not varied or changed between the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry and the date of clearance of the goods for home consumption. The notification cannot be read in a way as to make its meaning absurd, and an importer denied the benefit solely on this ground that they did not have the certificate of registration as on the date of presenting the Bill of Entry. As regards their being a Newspaper Establishment, it is clear that they were in printing business and functioning as a Small Scale Unit since 1979. They required merely a registration, for publication purpose, which have been fulfilled before clearance and hence the benefits cannot be denied. We are strengthened in our view in terms of the rulings noted below. 13. In the case of Iflunik Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 518 (Tribunal) = 1990 (31) ECR 484, it has been held in para 7 at page 487 that : It is well-settled that statutes including notifications should be construed in a manner as to make them work un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccept the proposition that the notification has to be strictly construed as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the citations brought to our notice by the Learned DR. In all those cases, the very notification was being interpreted as regards to the nature of the goods and as to whether the imported goods met the description of the goods described in the notification. Therefore, in the context of interpretation of an exemption for a particular category of goods, it was held that the notification has to be strictly construed and the goods which did not meet the description of the notification should not get the benefit and in this context, it was further emphasised that a person invoking an expansion or an exemption provision to releave him from a tax, should establish clearly that he is covered by the said proviso. It was further emphasised in those cases that benefit of doubt go to the State and this view was expressed in the case of Novopan India Ltd. (supra) as well as in the case of Liberty Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which followed the earlier judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. (supra). The Learned DR also relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
