9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o importer – Tribunal vide impugned order reversed order of commissioner – Held that:- on reading of Sections 3 and 7 of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, it becomes clear, that so far as imported item, viz., pig bristles is concerned, no sales tax, in fact, is charged on same – Since no tax is chargeable on sale of such goods, said Exemption Notification will therefore, not apply – We, accordingly, set aside judgment of tribunal and restore Commissioners’ order – Appeal disposed of. - Civil Appeal No. 216 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. JUDGMENT R. F. Nariman, J. Despite service, nobody appears for the respondent. We have heard Shri Arijit Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of such goods which the importer sells post importation from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale of goods. The facts of the present case are that pig hair bristles that were imported were sold in the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 26.03.2003 stating that since these pig hair bristles were, in fact, sold without any sales tax been paid thereon, the benefit of Exemption Notification dated 13.06.1998 would not be available to the importer in the present case. By a reply dated 17.10.2003, the importer essentially contended that pig hair bristles may be exempted from sales tax but that did not mean that they were not chargeable to sales tax. In a detailed order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old the goods from the places where no tax was chargeable on the sale/purchase of the goods and thereby violated the condition contained in the above said exemption Notification No. 34/98-Cus. It was contended by Shri Arijit Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, that the CESTAT has not taken note of Section 7 of The Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') by which pig hair bristles were said to be in the nature of tax free goods. He further contended that in the present case, the CESTAT was not correct in referring to an Exemption Notification. What was, in fact, notified was the addition of Entry No. 67 to the Third Schedule of the Act vide Notification dated 15.10.1996 which was w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
