9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as "Molasses Control Rules") purchased 5000 MT Molasses from M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited, Andhra Pradesh on 30 July, 2012 and imported it into the State of Tamil Nadu for export. A surprise inspection conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department revealed that the appellant stored 7785.925 MT of Molasses in their storage tank inside the Chennai Harbour. The Assistant Commissioner on verification of the records from September 2012 to 21 December 2012 satisfied that the appellant without obtaining licence in ML-5 imported Molasses and kept it in their storage point at Chennai Harbour. The appellant paid the administrative charges in accordance with Rule 7 of the Molasses Control Rules. Thereafter, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is not liable to pay the administrative charges. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the administrative charges was collected forcibly and as such, the appellant was correct in filing a writ petition for refund of the amount. 3. The Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State contended that the appellant kept the Molasses purchased from Andhra Pradesh along with the stock covered by the licence obtained in ML-2. There was no segregation. The Learned Additional Advocate General on the strength of the documents available on record contended that the appellant stored 7785.925 MT of Molasses inside the Chennai Harbour. There was no entry in the records indicating that 5000 MT of Molasses was intended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate shall take a licence from the Collector of the District in Form ML-5. Rule 7(2)(b) provides that the molasses imported/exported shall not be disposed of in any manner while in transit. There are also string of provisions dealing with the licence fee or otherwise called as administrative fee for export/import of Molasses. 6. The appellant is the holder of ML-2 licence for possession and sale of Molasses. The appellant was expected to pay the administrative charges and obtain ML-5 licence from the concerned Collector in case, the company is desiring to import molasses into the State of Tamil Nadu or export. 7. The appellant appears to have purchased 5000 Mt of Molasses from M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited. The appellant has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for export to a foreign country. It is not clear as to why the appellant stored the Molasses intended for export along with 2785.925 MT of Molasses, which was not intended for such export. The molasses intended for export was not kept separately. It was mixed with the stock of molasses covered by ML-2 licence obtained by the appellant. 10. The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, directed the appellant to pay the administrative charges for 5000 MT of Molasses, which was exported to Tamil Nadu from Andhra Pradesh. The appellant without even recording protest paid the said amount. It was only thereafter the appellant filed writ petitions for refund of the amount. 11. The Core issue is as to whether the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of molasses and for import and export. The Rules contain the definition for Export. As per Rule 14 of Andhra Pradesh Molasses Rules, Export means dispatch of molasses to any place outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and includes export to foreign countries. 15. It is very clear that exporter like the appellant even for exporting Molasses to a place outside Andhra Pradesh shall pay the administrative fee for export. The state is not concerned as to whether export is to a foreign country. In short, the exporter like the appellant must pay administrative charges to the excise authorities at Andhra Pradesh for exporting molasses to a place outside the state of Andhra Pradesh. The payment made by M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department on 21 December 2012 at the storage premises of the appellant inside the Chennai harbour. There was no segregation of the stock intended for export vis-a-vis stock intended for local sale to prove that 5000 MT of Molasses was intended only for export to a particular country. The factum of payment of export fee by the M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited on 18 October 2012 was taken as the basic material to prove that the Molasses was procured only for export. The appellant by mixing 5000 MT of Molasses with another 2785.925 MT of Molasses contributed for the loss of identity of the product exported from the State of Andhra Pradesh. 20. The Molasses procured from the State of Andhra Prade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
