1988 (1) TMI 47 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 62/83-Cus.
2. Classification of imported goods under Heading No. 84.31 or 84.66.
3. Applicability of principles of statutory interpretation and fiscal law.

Summary:

Entitlement to the Benefit of Notification No. 62/83-Cus:
The core issue was whether the respondent was entitled to the exemption from the whole of the auxiliary duty of customs under Notification No. 62/83-Cus. The court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to this benefit, as the exemption applied only to paper-making machinery and component parts falling under Heading No. 84.31 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and not under Heading No. 84.66.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The respondent, a public limited company, imported goods for setting up a paper mill and registered the contract under Heading No. 84.66. The court noted that Heading No. 84.66 is specific to goods imported for the initial setting up or substantial expansion of a project. The court held that once goods are imported under a contract registered under Heading No. 84.66, they are subjected to duty as per that heading, and it is not open to the Revenue to impose a different rate of duty by classifying some goods under a different heading.

Applicability of Principles of Statutory Interpretation and Fiscal Law:
The respondent argued that the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant" should apply, suggesting that Heading No. 84.31 (specific entry) should prevail over Heading No. 84.66 (general entry). The court rejected this argument, stating that Heading No. 84.66 is not a general entry but a specific one. Additionally, the court dismissed the contention that fiscal laws should be construed in favor of the taxpayer, emphasizing that this principle applies only when there is ambiguity in the language of the statute, which was not the case here.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the respondent was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 62/83-Cus and that the appellants were correct in levying auxiliary duty as per Notification No. 61/83-Cus.