Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (8) TMI 709

of the Notification and goods imported by them are not covered under the Notification - Whether the imported product is covered under the Notification? - Held that:- Notification does not permit the import of ‘tag pins’ or ‘loops’. Any Notification giving the benefit of exemption is required to be construed strictly and the person invoking the exemption provision to relieve him of the tax imposed establish that he has exempted by the said Notification as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Perfect Machine Tools Vs. CC [1997 (10) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the appellants did not import ‘tags’. Items imported by them ‘tag loops or pins’ are not eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 140 of the N/N. 21/2002-Cus - Whether the importers are qualified to be bonafide exporters? - Held that:- The show-cause notice or the Order-in-Original or Order-in-Appeal have not examined the claim of the appellants that they are bona fide exporters in a proper perspective. No finding has been given as to whether the appellants have not exported at all even in the past contrary to their claims - however, as the goods in question are not eligible for exemption we do not intend .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ty Lakhs only), in lieu of confiscation, and a penalty of ₹ 6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lakhs only). (vii). M/s Impex International to pay a penalty of ₹ 8,00,000/- and Shri Kanthilal Jain, partner of Sapna Garments to pay a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only).. (viii). ₹ 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) paid by M/s. Impex International is liable for appropriation. The Commissioner of Appeals has confirmed the order passed by Additional Commissioner. Hence, the appeals. 2. With this background, we heard Shri Krishna Srinivasan, learned advocate for the appellants and Smt. Kavitha Poduwal, DR appearing for Revenue. 3. The main submissions on behalf of the appellant are summarized below: 3.1. Sl. No. 140 of Notification No. 21/2002 grants the benefit of exemption for bonafide exporters. There is no condition of end-use attached to such exemption. They have relied upon the following case-law: a) Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India - (1976) 2 SCC 241 3.2. Continental was a bona fide exporter as evidenced by their registration with the Apparel Export Promotion Counsel. 3.3. M/s Sapna was also a bona fide exporter even after they have not done any expor .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

5.1. The learned DR further submitted that in the absence of copies of bills of entry she is unable to accept that the samples produced by the advocate are from the original import consignments. 6. We heard both sides and perused the records. The brief issue to be decided in this case is as to (i) Whether the imported product is covered under the Notification? (ii) Whether the importers are qualified to be bonafide exporters? 6.1. Coming to the issue at No. (i), we find that the Notification No. 21/2002 exempts certain goods subject to following such condition mentioned therein. We find that the appellants have claimed the exemption as per entry at Sl. No. 140 of the Notification. The Sl. No. reads as follows: S. No. Chapter/Heading/sub-Heading No. Description of Goods Standard rate Additional Duty Rate Condition No. 140 39, 48 or any other chapter Tags, labels, printed bags, stickers, belts, buttons or hangers, imported by bonafide exporters Nil Nil - The goods were imported by M/s. Sapna Garments and M/s. Continental Exporters claiming the benefit of Sl. No. 140 of Notification No. 21/2002. The benefit is available to tags, labels, printed bags, stickers etc. imported by bona fid .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

g pin with the help of which the tags are attached to the apparel. Therefore, there is no confusion on our part to hold that the items imported by the appellants are not tags. At best they can be called tag pins or tag loops . It may be the function of the item is tagging. For this reason they do not become Tags. We find that the Notification does not permit the import of tag pins or loops . Any Notification giving the benefit of exemption is required to be construed strictly and the person invoking the exemption provision to relieve him of the tax imposed establish that he has exempted by the said Notification as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Perfect Machine Tools Vs. CC - 1997 (96) E.L.T. (214) (SC) as held by the original adjudicating authority. We find that Supreme Court in the case of CC Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar & Co. and others held, in civil appeal No 3327/2007, that Exemption Notification should be interpreted strictly: the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption For that reason we have no doubt in holding that the appellants have proved satisfact .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

. As long as the importers have been certified to be exporters by the AEPC they are to be considered as bona fide exporters only. We find that show-cause notice or the Order-in-Original or Order-in-Appeal have not examined the claim of the appellants that they are bona fide exporters in a proper perspective. No finding has been given as to whether the appellants have not exported at all even in the past contrary to their claims. However as we find that the goods in question are not eligible for exemption we do not intend to go further into the aspect whether the appellants were bona fide exporters or otherwise. 6.4. Further, the appellants have contended that their previous exports were permitted and therefore their import should be allowed as per the past practice. We find that it is a settled law that there is no estoppel in matters relate to taxes. Only due to the reason that such imports were permitted in previous years, the same cannot be continued once the Department has come to know about the wrong practice. We find that there is no infirmity in the orders to that extent. 6.5. We find that the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal seeks to impose fine in lieu of confiscation .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||