9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nability to prove the actual use or the fact that use was some purpose in addition to that stated in the certificate of the use is irrelevant. It was further held that if the intention of the legislature was to limit the exemption only to such goods sold as were actually used by the undertaking in generation and distribution of electrical energy, the phraseology used in exemption clause would have been different such as 'goods actually' used or 'goods used'. It is well settled in law that exemption Notification has to be interpreted strictly and the burden of proving applicability is on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of exemption clause or exemption Notification. It is equally well settled legal proposition that if ambiguity in exemption Notification is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. The Notification does not stipulate a condition of proof for end use in order to claim exemption. It is pertinent to mention here that wherever the benefit of a Notification is granted subject to condition of actual use, in such a case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use in the specified plantation sector by importing the condition of actual use in the specified plantation sector not contained in the Notification? 2. Background facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in the business of import and trading of equipments / appliances meant for use in agriculture, horticulture, coffee and tea plantations, forestry etc. The appellant imports the goods through Inland Container Deport (ICD) and Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore. The appellants during the period from 01.12.2003 to 31.03.2007 imported hi-tech appliances i.e., sprayers, power weeders, Tea Pruners and Mist Blowers, classifiableunder Chapter Heading 8424 8100, 8433 1190, 8414 5920 and 8201 6000 respectively availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty expended to specified goods imported for the use in plantation center. The aforesaid goods were imported by availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty at the rate of 5% as contained in Sl.No.252(A) of Notification No.21/2002 Cus dated 01.03.2002 as amended vide Notification No.175/2003dated 10.12.2003. The imported goods were sold by the appellant to the dealers who in turn sold the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant submitted that a sum of ₹ 1,30,22,441/- was demanded as duty from the appellant. However, it ispointed out that the material was placed before theauthorities evidencing the use of goods in tea and coffee sector. It is pointed out that goods worth ₹ 73,53,920/- were supplied to the departments of agriculture in the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh respectively. It is also pointed out that goods worth ₹ 5,09,854/- were supplied to customers / dealers in and around Bangalore, whereas goods worth ₹ 51,58,667/- were supplied to dealers / customers all over India. Reference has also been made to the material placed before the authorities viz., the communication dated 04.08.2007 as well as 12.09.2007 of the Joint Agricultural Director, Government of Karnataka stating that goods supplied by the appellant were used in coffee, tea, coconut andarecanut plantations sector. 5. Our attention has also been invited to communication dated 20.07.2007 issued by Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited stating that appellant has supplied knapsack sprayers under the government subsidy schemes and the goods were used to spray pesticid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PANY', AIR 2018 SC 3603. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The period of dispute in question is 01.12.2003 to 31.03.2007. In exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Act, the Central Government by a Notification has exempted the goods imported into India mentioned therein. Entry 252A of the aforesaid Notification, which is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in this appeal, reads as under: 252A 84 or any chapter Machinery or Equipment, specified in List 32A, for use in the plantation sector 5% 8[-] -] 8. The relevant extract of List 32A reads as under: (1) machinery for coffee plantation sector, namely:- (2) Machinery for tea plantation sector, namely::- (i) tea bagging machine, falling under tariff item 8422 30 00 (ii) Tea packaging machine, falling under tariff item 8422 30 00 (iii) color sorting machine, falling under sub-heading 8433 70 (iv) Tea leaf cutting-rolling machine, falling under tariff item 8438 80 40 (v) Mechanical harvester, falling under tariff item 8433 59 00 (vi) Tea pruning machine, falling under tariff item 8201 60 00 (vii) Mist blower, falling under tariff item 8414 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed by the assesseeand it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. [See: DILIP KUMAR supra]. From conjoint reading of the entry made in the Notification dated 01.03.2002 as well as the Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance and the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., it is evident that the expression 'for use' means intended for use. In Entry 252A, the expression 'for use' has been used, which means intended for use as well. The Notification does not stipulate a condition of proof for end use in order to claim exemption. It is pertinent to mention here that wherever the benefit of a Notification is granted subject to condition of actual use, in such a case, the Notification has used the words 'only, exclusively or entirely'. In this connection, we may refer 15to Entry 250 in the Notification dated 01.03.2002, which grants exemption subject to actual use and adherence to concessional rate of duty as a condition in the Notification. In view of the Circular issued by theFinance Department, dated 11.01.2005, it is evidentthat the Entry in question does not suffer from anyambiguity and does not impose any condition of actual use. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
