The Collector of Telecom Stores Vs. Commissioner of Customs

The Collector of Telecom Stores vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 25, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23364

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/23364
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: May 25, 2001
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Collector of Telecom Stores

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(137)ELT1113Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....the provisions reads as under:- "date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods.- (1) 6[the rate of duty 7***] and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force,- (a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section;".3. the section specified the date of presentation of the bill of entry and not the date of payment of duty on the goods. this has been clarified h the bombay high court in their order reproduced in 1995 (79) elt 549 [sumar timber corporation vs. asstt. collector of customs, bombay]. thus, where during the importation and the presentation of the bill of entry, duties had been enhanced, it was held that the enhanced rates would apply in the case shyam sunder kailashchand vs. union of india [1995 (77) elt 528 (bom).].4. both authorities have emphasized that he notification used the phrase "to be imported" and refused to extend the benefit of goods already imported.5. it is true that the government has the authority to extend such adhoc exemption t goods already imported and cleared also this has been observed in the tribunal judgement reported in 1989 (40) elt 348 (tribunal) [dalal consultant & engineers pvt. ltd. vs. collector of customs] but the situation before us is not covered by this judgement.6. it is settled law that notification has to be interpreted strictly on the basis of the wording used therein without leaving scope for intendment viewed in this manner, the adhoc notification was not capable of covering the goods in the case of which the bills of entry were filed prior to the date of issue of that notification.7. on this ground we uphold the impugned order and dismissed this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants received an Adhoc Exemption Order dt. 5.1.89 whereby partial exemption was granted from the duties of Customs, auxiliary duty of Customs and Additional Duty of Customs leviable on cables and other equipment to be imported by the present appellant upto the value limit of Rs.121.3 crores (emphasis added). The Notification was valid upto 31.3.89 but the validity was late extended to 30.9.89. Before the issue of the notification, the appellants had filed two bills of entry on 28.12.88. After assessment duty was paid in the case of both bills of entry on 6.1.89 and the goods were cleared on receipt of the notification. The present appellants filed two refund claims. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claims holding that the Adhoc Exemption Order did not cover goods which had already been cleared citing the provisions of Section 15(1) (a) he dismissed the refund claim. The dismissal having been upheld by the Collector (Appeals).

Hence the present appeal is before us.

2. Section 15 (1) (a) prescribed the date for determination of rate of duty. The relevant portion of the provisions reads as under:- "Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods.- (1) 6[The rate of duty 7***] and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force,- (a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section;".

3. The section specified the date of presentation of the bill of entry and not the date of payment of duty on the goods. This has been clarified h the Bombay High Court in their order reproduced in 1995 (79) ELT 549 [Sumar Timber Corporation Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay]. Thus, where during the importation and the presentation of the bill of entry, duties had been enhanced, it was held that the enhanced rates would apply in the case Shyam Sunder Kailashchand Vs. Union of India [1995 (77) ELT 528 (Bom).].

4. Both authorities have emphasized that he notification used the phrase "to be imported" and refused to extend the benefit of goods already imported.

5. It is true that the Government has the authority to extend such Adhoc Exemption t goods already imported and cleared also this has been observed in the Tribunal judgement reported in 1989 (40) ELT 348 (Tribunal) [Dalal Consultant & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs] but the situation before us is not covered by this judgement.

6. It is settled law that notification has to be interpreted strictly on the basis of the wording used therein without leaving scope for intendment viewed in this manner, the Adhoc notification was not capable of covering the goods in the case of which the bills of entry were filed prior to the date of issue of that notification.

7. On this ground we uphold the impugned order and dismissed this appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties The Collector of Telecom Stores vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Land Acquisition