9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a place outside the state of Andhra Pradesh. The payment made by M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited on behalf of the appellant should be considered in the context of the definition for the term “export” under the Andhra Pradesh Molasses Rules. The Tamil Nadu Molasses Control and Regulation Rules very clearly provides that every dealer desiring to import molasses from places outside the State and every dealer desiring to export molasses outside the State must procure licence in Form ML-5 on payment of administrative charges - There is no dispute that the appellant imported molasses to the State of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of exporting it into a place outside the State. There are two elements involved in this process; one relating to the import of molasses from Andhra Pradesh and another exporting the molasses outside the State. The term export/import must be interpreted in the light of the definition given to the said term in the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. There are no documents produced before us to show that while taking the export permit from the excise authorities at Andhra Pradesh, the appellant declared that it was intended for export to a particular country. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stored, but as part of the business by way of export sales, the transactions would attract the provisions of the Molasses Control Rules. The common order is under challenge at the instance of the writ petitioner. Summary of Submissions 2. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant purchased 5000 MT Molasses from M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited, Andhra Pradesh on 30 July, 2012. The administrative fee for exporting the Molasses out of Andhra Pradesh was paid by M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited for and on behalf of the appellant. The appellant took the molasses to Tamil Nadu only for export. Since Molasses was taken to Tamil Nadu only in the course of transit, there is no liability to take either a licence in Form No. 5 or payment of administrative fee under Rule 7(2) of the Molasses Control Rules. The Learned Senior Counsel contended that there was no allegation that the appellant indulged in local sale. The Molasses was kept inside the Chennai Port Trust for the purpose of export. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the administrative charges. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the administrative charges was collected forcibly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt/import of Molasses. 6. The appellant is the holder of ML-2 licence for possession and sale of Molasses. The appellant was expected to pay the administrative charges and obtain ML-5 licence from the concerned Collector in case, the company is desiring to import molasses into the State of Tamil Nadu or export. 7. The appellant appears to have purchased 5000 Mt of Molasses from M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited. The appellant has not produced the licence issued by the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Possession, Import, Export, Transport of Molasses Conditions of License and Permits) Rules, 2008 for export of molasses. The receipt produced by the appellant indicates that M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited paid a sum of ₹ 1,25,00,000/- towards export pass fee on 18 October 2012. This receipt is taken as the basic material by the appellant to contend that the export fee was paid in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of exporting 5000 MT of Molasses from Andhra Pradesh. Even the quantity is not mentioned in the said receipt, which is a treasury challan. The appellant for the reasons best known failed to produce any documents before this Court to prove the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which this Act applies from any other local area in the State of Tamil Nadu to which this Act has not been extended; or (b) to bring into the State of Tamil Nadu, including the bringing across a customs frontier as defined by the Central Government. 14. The Andhra Pradesh Excise (Possession, Import, Export, Transport of Molasses - Conditions of License and Permits) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as Andhra Pradesh Molasses Rules 2008, provides for the grant of licenses for possession or sale of molasses and for import and export. The Rules contain the definition for Export. As per Rule 14 of Andhra Pradesh Molasses Rules, Export means dispatch of molasses to any place outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and includes export to foreign countries. 15. It is very clear that exporter like the appellant even for exporting Molasses to a place outside Andhra Pradesh shall pay the administrative fee for export. The state is not concerned as to whether export is to a foreign country. In short, the exporter like the appellant must pay administrative charges to the excise authorities at Andhra Pradesh for exporting molasses to a place outside the state of Andhra Pradesh. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort. The purchase was on 30 July 2012. The inspection was on 21 December 2012. The inspecting team inspected the entire records for the period from 1 September 2012 to 21 December 2012. The verification clearly revealed that the appellant was in possession of large quantity of Molasses and it was kept on the strength of ML-2 Licence. 21. The appellant even for export from Tamil Nadu must obtain licence in ML-5 for which he should pay administrative charges under Rule 7(2) of the Molasses Control Rules. It would not be possible for the appellant to avoid the statutory liability of payment of administrative charges by contending that Molasses was procured from the State of Andhra Pradesh by paying export fee there. The export from Andhra Pradesh to the State of Tamil Nadu would amount to import in the State of Tamil Nadu. In case the Molasses is exported to a place outside the State it would amount to export from the State. 22. There are no documents produced before us to show that while taking the export permit from the excise authorities at Andhra Pradesh, the appellant declared that it was intended for export to a particular country. The appellant conveniently failed to prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
