Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (9) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the Industrial Plant so as to have the levy as per Heading 84.66 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975). The case for registration as above was advanced before the third respondent in the following lines as I could see from the order of the third respondent - "They have stated in the application that the equipment is being imported in connection with the initial setting up of a Recording Studio for manufacture of Master Tapes in Bangalore. The capacity of the Unit is stated to be 300 Master Tapes a year. The Master. Tapes as recorded are required for the manufacture of pre-recorded cassettes and gramophone records and in addition they are also used by Commercial Broadcasting Radio stations of All India Radio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... They have also placed reliance on the endorsement by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for extending to them the benefit of assessment as a project import under Heading 84.66 of the CTA 1975." The third respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for registration of the contract under the Project Imports (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965 by his order dated 12.5.1981. The third respondent after adverting to the contention of the petitioner and the factual features urged in support of his case that the Unit for manufacturing Master Tapes will come within the meaning of an Industrial Plant, opined the other way about. The petitioner appeals to the second respondent, and the second respondent by order da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the first respondent in his order. The first respondent in his order gave reasons for not accepting the activities of Messrs Suresh Productions as coming within the ambit of an Industrial Plant, to attract Heading 84.66. Ultimately the first respondent rejected both the revision applications. 3. Mr. M. Ganapathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would urge the following points, seeking interference at the hands of this Court in writ powers - (i) The petitioner was granted import licence, after all the formalities therefore were satisfied and an endorsement was made on the import licence that the items of machinery covered by the import to be made would come under Heading No. 84.66; and that is binding on respondents 1 to 3 and o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etitioner do warrant the bringing in of the unit proposed to be set up by the petitioners as an Industrial Plant to have the benefit of Heading 84.66, the petitioner can certainly succeed on that point. But unfortunately, the first respondent has not at all adverted to, discussed and considered the factual features of the case of the petitioner. The first respondent was dealing with a statutory revision. He is duty bound to advert to the points factually and legally urged before him in the revision. If he was on the factual features opined one way or the other, certainly this court can assess the propriety and tenability of the reasonings and then consider the question of passing the appropriate orders, if there is warrant for it. But, wher .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... own findings on the basis of its appreciation of the evidence. Instead of doing so, the appellate authority has passed a very cryptic order which does not reveal the reasons which impelled it to concur with the findings of the disciplinary authority. In such circumstances, the orders of the appellate authority has to be set aside and it must be called upon to dispose of the appeals afresh. The learned Counsel for the respondent pleaded that a remand of the appeals for fresh consideration would mean further delay and the respondents would greatly suffer further by the prolongation of the proceedings. We have to point out that whatever may be the hardship felt by the resondents, this court cannot convert itself into an appellate Court and go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates