Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 532 - AT - CustomsImport of Aromatic Chemicals - benefit of Customs Notification No. 56/98-Cus - Goods ‘sold as such’ - Meaning of Words and Phrases - Demand - Grants exemption from payment of SAD - HELD THAT:- On a careful consideration, we notice that this legal fiction on ‘manufacture’ incorporated in the Chapter Note of the Excise Tariff cannot be invoked to interpret a Notification under the Customs Tariff Act. The goods have not undergone any change by any process and they remained the same even on repacking. The term ‘as such’ referred to in the Notification is to mean that the goods should not undergo any process of change. This change has not taken place admittedly on being repacking. Therefore, invocation of Chapter Note of Chapter 29 to hold that the goods have not been sold ‘as such’ is not correct in the light of the interpretation placed by us. The goods have remained the same and they have sold ‘as such’ and paid the sales tax. Therefore, the view taken by the department that the goods are not sold ‘as such’ on being repacked is not a correct one as there is no such definition given to the term ‘as such’ in the Notification. So long as the same goods are sold as such either in the same condition or in the repacked condition, the benefit cannot be denied to them. Moreover, the purpose of levy of SAD is to make it par with the local sales on payment of sales tax. As the sales tax has been levied in the present case, the question of again levying SAD does not arise. Furthermore, we notice that the High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Lipton India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1994 (6) TMI 202 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] was considering the question as to whether the process of blending, mixing and repacking the tea would convert the tea into a distinct commercial commodity. The assessee contended that they were paying Central Excise Duty on the repacked tea and, therefore, the repacked commodity was commercially different from the unpacked tea. The High Court rejected the above contention and held that tea continues to retain its identity even after the process of blending and repacking and that the definition in Central Excise Law cannot be used to interpret the Sales Tax Law. In the light of this ratio, we hold that the invocation of Chapter Note of Chapter 29 to hold that the goods are different on repacking is not a correct view taken by the Commissioner. The goods remained “as such” even on repacking as they had not undergone any change. Further, we agree with the contention of the appellant that the demands are time barred. As they had already filed all the details and there is no suppression of facts in the matter, was for the department to call for further details if they had any doubt. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
|