TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared on diverse dates from 18-11-83 onwards on payment of the concessional duty assessable in terms of the Heading; (b) at the time of registration, no contracts for the suply of essential spare parts were concluded since the requirements thereof were not worked out. Nevertheless, in the appellant s letter to the Assistant Collector dated 12-10-1983, it was stated that the spare parts for the plant will be imported in a month or two time for which we will be filing papers separately for project benefit. After contracts for the supply of spares were concluded and the clearance from DGTD obtained on 19-4-1984, the appellant applied for registration on 4-5-1984; (c) in the application for registration, it was specifically stated that the spare parts being imported were essential and initial spare pars for the capital goods since imported and cleared in terms of the aforesaid Heading; (d) The request for registration of the contracts for spares was, however, refused by the assistant Collector on 7-6-1984 on the ground that the contracts for spares were separate contracts exclusively and cannot be correlated with the main contract for plant and machinery for which the concessio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority, administrative or quasi-judicial, that power must be exercised in good faith and in furtherance of the object of the statute. [Reliance on the decisions reported in (i) 1968 S.T.C. 154 at 182 (Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner - Judl. -Sales Tax); (ii) 107 ITR 195 (S.C.) Textile Machinery Corporation v. C.I.T.; (iii) 131 ITR 592 at 596 CIT, West Bengal v. Somendra Kumar Neogi; (iv) 126 ITR 673 at 678 (CIT v. Gedore Tools India Ltd.); (v) 128 ITR 290 (Kamal Chand v. I.T.O.); (vi) 113 ITR 208 at 216 (C.I.T. v. Satellite Engineering Ltd.); (vii) 1982(11) ITD 39 at 44 (Laxmi Rice Mills v. I.T.O.); (viii) 1982 (2) 1TD 454 at 457 at 457-458; (ix) 78 ITR 26]; (e) the requirement of registration in terms of Heading 84.66(2) is, like the registration of a partnership under the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely directory and not mandatory [Reliance upon (i) 102 ITR 560; (ii) !18 ITR 392 at 395 and 396 (Additional C.I.T. v. Murlidhar Mathura Prasad); (f) where the provisions are couched in a language which is not free from ambiguity and admits of two interpretations, a view which is favourable to the subject should be adopted [Reliance on - (i) 105 ITR 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levy at 40% ad velorem on all imports of plant and machinery required for the initial setting up of a unit or the substantial expansion of an existing unit as well as spares and raw materials, as the case may be, essential to the maintenance of the plant and machinery to the extent of 10% of the value of the plant and machinery itself provided that - (i) one or more specific contracts under which the plant and machinery had been purchased are registerd with the appropriate Custom House in the manner prescribed by the Project Imports (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965 framed under S. 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, the Regulations) and before any order permitting clearance for home consumption or warehousing, as the case may be, is made; and (ii) the spares or raw materials should be imported as a part of a contract or contracts registered as aforesaid. (d) regulation 5 of the Regulations, provides for an application to be made for registration of any amendments made to the contract sought to be registered, whether the amendments are made before or after registration; (e) registration of the contracts as originally concluded or as amended subsequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in fiscal enactments that one must have regard to the letter of the law and not merely the spirit of the statute or the substance of the law [AIR 1957 S.C. 657 (A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala); AIR 1957 S.C. 664 (C.L.T., Bombay v. Provident Investment Co.]. Tax laws are not beneficent legislation so that a liberal construction could be adopted. In the words of Rowlatt J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. I.R.C. [(1921) 2 KB 403] in a taxing statute, one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. It is equally well settled that while a charging provision has to be strictly construed so that the subject is not to be taxed unless the words of the taxing statute unambiguously impose the tax on him [Russel v. Scott (1948) 2 All ER1 (H.L.) (Lord Simonds)], a person who claims an exemption or lesser tax or duty has to establish it [AIR 1959 S.C. 239 - C.I.T. v. Ramakrishna Deo]. An exemption has to be construed strictly [AIR 1967 S.C. 1201 Municipal Committee, Akot v. Manilal]. Aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en refused even if the requirements for such registration had not been complied with: (iv) the concessional duty in terms of the sub-heading (ii) (of Heading 84.66) is applicable when the requisite conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The relevant condition is not that the contract(s) for spares should be registered but that the supply and import thereof must be pursuant to and form part of contract(s) for plant and machinery registered in terms of sub-heading (i). Registration is only in terms of sub-heading (i) and that too in respect of contract(s) for supply of plant and machinery sought to be imported. There can be no registration under sub-heading (ii) of 84.66. One cannot insist upon registration of contract(s) for spares under sub-heading (i); (v) while registration under sub-heading (i) may be procedural, the conditions pre-requisite for an entitlement to registration of contract(s) for plant and machinery, for a concessional assessment of an import of spares once the contract(s) for plant and machinery had been registered, are not procedural. The concessional charge of duty is attracted only if the requisite conditions had been fulfilled and not otherwise. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. 184 of the Income Tax Act in the context of the time prescribed for filing a return under S.139 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the opportunity to be afforded to the assessee to rectify defects in the declaration of the continuance of a previously registered firm for the assessment year in question in terms of S.185 (2) and in the light of subsequent repeal and re-enactment of S.184(7) so as to provide for submission of the declaration within the period prescribed for filing of the return under S.139 (1) and (2) and not, necessarily, along with the return as heretofore, that the Hon ble High Courts of Patna and Allahabad concluded that the requirement of submission of a declaration along with the return was procedural and, accordingly, directory and not mandatory; (ix) so also, in (1968) 21 S.T.C. 155, the question was if an appeal, otherwise in order, could be defective if the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied with proof of payment of the admitted tax in terms of S.9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (1948). It was on a construction of the word entertain (ultimately held to mean admit to consideration ) occurring in the said provision that their Lordships concluded that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be confused with a procedural requirements but are mandatory; (i) the contention to the effect that in the facts and circumstances of this appeal the registration of the contract(s) for spares as a part of the contract(s) for plant and machinery was impossible was one to despair. Regulation 5 of the Regulations, as already observed, enables amendments to the contract(s) already registered. If the appellant entered into contract(s) for supply of spares by way of amendment of the contracts already registered, there would have been no difficulty. The fresh contracts for supply of spares were all admittedly concluded by 24.2.1983 while the earliest clearance of plant and machinery took place only 18.11.83. Prior to 18.11.83, nothing prevented the appellant to apply under Regulation 5, if, indeed, the spares were ordered by way of amendments to the original contracts. It was appellant, by its own actions and conduct, rendered the Heading 84.66(ii) inapplicable, and not that there is anything inherent in the Heading itself that rendered it impracticable; (j) it is not as if one could reserve one s right to concessional assessment to be exercised as and when contract(s) for spares cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
