9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Notification 23/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997 on the ground that the said raw materials have been imported for the purpose of jobbing, i.e. for extraction of Cassia Oil Crude and export thereof, the order impugned had held that the said import being hit by Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was confiscated with an offer to redeem on a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Further, penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Act. The appropriate duty of customs was also held to be chargeable. 2. Heard Shri Habibullah Badsha, Sr. Advocate for appellants assisted by Shri E.S. Govindan, ld. Advocate and Ms. Aruna Gupta, ld. DR for the department. 3. Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the goods have been imported in view of the job work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cassia (Whole) would be allowed only for export of Cassia Oleo Resin and since in the present case it was not such a resin but Cassia Oil Crude, which was to be exported, therefore the import would be hit under Paragraph 7.2, which in turn, would violate Paragraph 7.12. Ld. Sr. Advocate submits that definition of jobbing has been provided in Paragraph 3.28 and that the parent provision governing import under jobbing would be Paragraph 7.12 which reads as under in the relevant policy :- "Jobbing, repairing etc. for re-export. (i) The import of goods in terms of paragraph 7.2 supplied free of cost may be permitted for the purpose of jobbing without a licence as per the terms of notification issued by Department of Revenue from time t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any clarification by DGFT is (a) not binding on Courts and Tribunals and (b) it has to be read only in the context of the clear Policy provisions. Ld. Sr. Advocate submits that the following decisions laid down this well settled law :- (i) 1993 (66) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) - Bengal Iron Corporation (ii) 1995 (75) E.L.T. 292 (Tribunal) - Photokom Industries (iii) 1995 (78) E.L.T. 12 (Del.) - C.C. v. Prashant Glass Works (iv) 1994 (74) E.L.T. 827 (Cal.) - Kalindi Woollen Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 5. Ld. Sr. Advocate also submits that even if Paragraph 7.12 is capable of two interpretations, one of which was upheld by the Order-in-Original impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia v. Sampat Raj Dugar as in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). 7. Ld. DR on the other hand, strenuously argues that a wrong precedent cannot be allowed to continue and would in no way act as estoppel against Order-in-Original impugned. She further submits that the Import Policy is very clear inasmuch as that if the addenda to an advance licence were not at all applicable, there was no need for Para 7.12 to make a reference of the scheme contained in paragraph 7.2. Therefore, in view of the DGFT's clarification noted above which in any case is merely a reiteration of the Policy, no licence was necessary for the import, yet the norms for input output under Para 7.2 for food products could not be ignored. According to these norms, Cassia (Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m time to time. No doubt, paragraph 7.12 also refers that the goods are to be imported in terms of paragraph 7.2, but in our opinion, this has to be construed only to the broad scheme contained under Paragraph 7.2 wherein goods including raw materials can be imported duty free. We find that thereafter the wordings of paragraph 7.12 explicitly provides the other conditions (i) to (iii) as enumerated above. (b) We find that in view of the specific provision in Para 7.12 that no import licence would be necessary for such imports, the DGFT had rightly clarified in their letter noted above that no such import licence would be necessary. (c) However, we are not in a position to uphold the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Import & Export Policy, would not be binding on that Court or Tribunal in view of the plethora of case laws noted above. Therefore, while we on our own find that no licence is required for this import, we are unable to accept the rest of the clarification contained in the said DGFT's letter, as we have already found above that a correct interpretation of Paragraph 7.12 does not lead us to the conclusion that any other norms associated with an Advance Licence on input-output considerations would apply to that para. 10. We also note that in the event two different interpretations are capable of being given to any statute, particularly to fiscal statute, the one which is favourable to the assessee is to be preferred. This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
