Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (11) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r alia of twisting and processing polyester filament yarn. They also undertake the processing of raw material belonging to and received from other units on job work basis and sending back to such units processed goods. At no stage did the appellants acquire any proprietary or other interest in the goods, the ownership whereof continues to be that of the said unit. On 23-12-1985 there was a visit of Customs Officers, the appellants on the basis of intelligence collected that the appellant was receiving illegally imported Polyester Filament yarn and was being utilised for the process of texturised yarn, a batch of officers visited the unit. On checking the goods lying in the factory premises, the Customs Officers found 2 lots of cartons havin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s as mentioned in Section 11C(2) of the Customs Act. He would state that the term `acquires as mentioned in the section means owning. He tried to explain that there is a difference between owning and possessing or having control over the goods. The term acquire would postulate more than possession and he would even state that it may be more than possessing and controlling over the goods. He finally would state that acquire means owning. He cited the decision of Tribunal in Ratan T. Ahuja s case 1988 (33) E.L.T. 622 (Tribunal) = 1986 (8) ECR 456 to say that for the proposition that for a job worker provisions of Chapter IVA of the Customs Act is not applicable. He also cited various other judgments rendered by the Tribunal reported i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acquires and parts with . In sub-section (2) the words acquires and control are not found. Therefore the argument that word acquire postulate more than possession may not be correct as word acquired is absent in sub-section (2). There is no word of limitation attached to the words owns, possess, control and acquires. Hence we are of the view that the argument of ld. Counsel cannot be accepted. 7. Let us consider the cases cited by him during the course of arguments. The first case is Mani Ram Gupta v. C.C. - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 161. There the goods were electronic in nature viz. Colour T.V., stereo cassette etc. Yet the Tribunal held that the goods were liable for confiscation. The said case may not be applicable and even if it is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... epting the cameras all other goods ordered to be confiscated are non-notified goods, whereas Shri Pattekar contended that colour films were also notified for the purpose of Chapter IV(a) of the Customs Act. Shri Raichandani conceded that colour films were notified but he urged that subsequently they were denotified. But then he had not chosen to produce a copy of the notification under which colour films were denotified. In the absence of such a notification we accept Shri Pattekar s contention that colour films were also notified goods. On verification, we found that it was only in the year 1984 the colour films came to be denotified; but the seizure in this case is prior to the said notification. In the case of notified goods the allegati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ods. In these circumstances the contention of Shri Raichandani that the appellant is not required to comply with the provisions of Section 11C, D, E and F of the Customs Act has no merit. Admittedly, the appellant did not comply with those provisions in respect of admitted notified goods. In the circumstances if the Additional Collector had ordered confiscation of the notified goods the same cannot be successfully challenged. Here in this case, the appellant was not a repairer but a job worker doing processing work on the grey cloth. Here is an independent contra not being controlled by the Trader, facts are entirely different. The observation of the Tribunal in the said case of exemption being applicable to actual repairers may appear t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates