9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Durgapur Steel Plant by trucks through Hosenabad check-post in Hooghly district. At the said check-post, declaration in form IV was submitted and the Entry Tax Inspector on inspecting and checking the goods and documents produced by and on behalf of the applicants allowed the trucks to enter into the Calcutta Metropolitan Area. By a Notification No. 1089-F.T. dated April 5, 1990, the steel scraps were exempted from entry tax. The Entry Tax Inspector endorsed the challan of the applicants as exempted. The applicant thereafter sold the goods to various customers. The applicant was surprised to receive a notice being No. 119/HBD/ ET/91-92 dated February 4, 1992 under section 14(3) of the Act of 1972 from the Entry Tax Officer, Hosenabad check-post, to appear on February 18, 1992 and to show cause against imposition of entry tax for the said goods. In terms of the said notice, all the documents regarding the import of the goods to Calcutta Metropolitan Area were shown to the Entry Tax Officer and it was explained that the goods were released at the check-post after physical verification. In spite of explaining everything, the applicant was served with a demand notice being No. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 was started and after hearing, entry tax has been assessed for Rs. 1,00,054 and a demand notice has been served upon the applicants for the said amount. The goods imported by the applicants have been assessed under serial No. 53(d)(ix) of the Schedule to the Act of 1972. The demand is legal and the applicants are bound to pay the tax. 4. Mr. D.K. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, has contended that the goods brought by the applicants are steel scraps and those have been described as rejected axle full length/fully/partly/machined in the invoices issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur. The invoices are annexure "A" series. Mr. Ghosh has drawn our attention to the declarations in form IV submitted at Hosenabad check-post between August 6, 1991 and September 23, 1991. It appears that as many as 46 lorries had brought the goods between the said dates. In all the declarations in form IV, the goods have been treated as steel scraps by the dealer as well as by the Inspector of Entry Tax. Mr. Ghosh's contention is that the Entry Tax Inspector, being respondent No. 5, having inspected and verified the goods allowed the goods to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant's false declaration about the goods being steel scraps was supported by a challan from Durgapur Steel Product (annexure "R"). This challan (annexure "R") cannot be a challan for the applicants as the respondents have full knowledge about the correct address of the applicants. The respondent's case is that the Entry Tax Inspector at Hosenabad compared the challan with the declaration form and allowed the goods to enter the Calcutta Metropolitan Area on endorsing the declaration form as "steel scrap, exempted". It is to be noted that as many as 46 lorries were involved in the transport of the goods between August 6, 1991 and September 23, 1991. The challan (annexure "R") can explain transport of goods by one lorry and once only. The said challan cannot explain transport of all the goods weighing 551.050 M.T. between August 6, 1991 and September 23, 1991 by so many lorries. Furthermore, the first date of transport of the goods was August 6, 1991. The challan is dated August 21, 1991. It is not the respondent's case that the applicants had misrepresented on the first date of transport and so the respondents did not make any verification on the subsequent dates on the assumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1972 was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1972 and the demand made thereafter was illegal and, therefore, liable to be quashed. He has invited our attention to the provisions of section 13 and section 14(1), (2) and (3) of the Act of 1972 which read as under: "13. Every dealer of specified goods shall, on or before the entry of such goods into the Calcutta Metropolitan Area, deliver, at a notified place, to the prescribed authority a declaration (in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed) relating to such goods: Provided that no such declaration shall be required to be made in relation to any specified goods which are exempted by sub-section (2) of section 6, section 7 or section 8 from the payment of any tax leviable under this Act. 14.. (1) Where a declaration has been made under section 13 by a dealer, the prescribed authority shall, after making such verification of the specified goods as it may consider necessary, assess the tax leviable on the entry of such goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area. (2) Where any dealer has omitted or failed to make the declaration, as required by section 13, the prescribed authority shall, after inspection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ern, Maharashtra Seamless Limited. He has also contended that excise duty is not added to basic price when the goods are treated as steel scrap and that scraps are sold by auction on the term of "as is where is basis" and such scraps are not sold directly by the marketing division. He has further contended that in case of steel scrap a transport pass is not necessary. The sale order produced by the respondents itself shows that it is the marketing division of Steel Authority of India Limited which negotiated and made the sale order. For the purposes of assessment of entry tax what is necessary under section 14(1) of the Act of 1972 is to make a verification of the specified goods as may be considered necessary by the prescribed authority. The question of subsequent sale by the dealer or the issue of transport pass or the question of addition of excise duty or whether sale was by way of auction on the term of "as is where is basis" appears to have no relevance after the verification as required by section 14(1) of the Act of 1972 is over. The notice issued under section 14(3) of the Act of 1972 (annexure "C") tends to show the reason for issuing the said notice. The endorsement in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
