9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... National Panasonic VCR were not given the benefit, in adjudication, of the Transfer of Residence Rules, by the Assistant Collector, on the ground that the Appellant s father and not the Appellant himself was the owner thereof. 3. The Appellant s father would appear to have arrived subsequently on 25-4-1982. 4. On his arrival the Appellant and his father would appear to have applied for a revision of the adjudication order. 5. In the order in revision the Additional Collector of Customs held that- (a) a scrutiny of the invoices revealed that the goods in question were purchased for export to India and were taken delivery of, directly, by the shipping agents and no local tax (VAT) was paid, since they were meant for export and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Services Ltd. was made only with a view to avoid payment of VAT (the invoices show VAT at zero per cent) and in actual fact, however, the goods were delivered on the very day of the purchase to the Appellant s father by the shipping agent, as would appear clear from a certificate given by the shipping agent. 7. Shri Ramanathan, the learned Representative of the Respondent pointed out that denial of T.R. concession to the Appellant when he arrived on 11-3-1982 was correct because as per the documents he was not the owner of the goods. He was, however, advised to keep these items with the customs on the undertaking that the same could be got released under the Baggage Rules when the owner of the goods i.e. the father of the Appellant woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1982, i.e. much after the arrival of the Appellant and his father and were not inclined to put much reliance on its as a piece of evidence in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case. Nor does the failure of the Assistant Collector to make any remark about the signs of use of the goods in question necessarily lead to a presumption regarding its use when for a fact he was disposing of the case on the short ground that the Appellant was, admittedly, not the owner of the goods. 11. Going by the invoices, it does not appear that the Appellant had the use of the articles for the requisite period. Nor can it be said that they had the right to use (placing a wider construction upon the word `use occurring in Rule 2 of the T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
