Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 1993 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1993 (4) TMI 68 - SC - Central ExciseWhether Ferro-alloys was the real exporter for all purposes and it was Ferro-alloys which earned and received the foreign exchange and M.M.T.C. got only its commission of 2% and nothing more? Held that:- The M.M.T.C. must be held to be the exporter for the purpose of Section 280(Z)(C). The entire system of barter and the several documents executed in that behalf including those required by statutory provisions cannot be explained away as mere "external appearances". The Ferro-alloys cannot come to M.M.T.C. when it is profitable to it and disavow it when it is not profitable to it. It cannot have it both ways. The title to goods passed to M.M.T.C. by virtue of the several documents executed between the parties. Indeed, that was the fulcrum of the entire scheme of Barter. We are also not convinced with the alternative reasoning of the High Court that even if it is held that the title to the goods passed to M.M.T.C., even so - Ferro-alloys must be held to be the real exporter, in view of the objective underlying Section 280(Z)(C). If M.M.T.C. has acquired the title to the goods and is the exporter for all other purposes, it is equally the exporter for the purposes of Sec. 280(Z)(C). There can be no dichotomy of the nature propounded by the High Court. Thus the High Court was not right in holding to the contrary. The appeal is allowed.
|