M/S Tarsem Singh Multani and Sons, Vs. Commissioner, Customs, Amritsar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these are five applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the following amounts of duty confirmed and penalty imposed by the commissioner customs, amritsar.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------name of the duty penaltyappellants------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------m/s tarsem singh 52,184/- 52,184/-& sons.m/s bee bee interna- 1,51,296/- 1,51,296/-tional.m/s gaurav arora. 67,775/- 67,775/-m/s gurdas & co. 52,400/- 52,400/-m/s jagdish chander 1,21,541/- 1,21,541/-sharma.----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- 2. shri g.s. bhangoo, ld. advocate, submitted that the commissioner, customs under different impugned orders has disallowed the benefit of exemption notification no. 56 of 1998 cus dated 01.08.1998 in respect of garlic imported by them holding that no evidence had been produced by the applicants to show that they had paid any sales tax/local tax/other charges on sale of goods as was required under the notification. the ld. advocate further submitted that on correct reading of the proviso to notification no. 56/98 cus, it would be found that exemption is not to apply if importer sells the said imported goods from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of goods; that the expression "goods" is not qualified by the expression "said" meaning thereby that the area contemplated in the proviso to notification has to be an area where there is a blanket exemption from tax on sale or purchase irrespective of duty under import; that it is not the case of the department that there is total exemption from tax on sale or purchase at amritsar where the impugned goods after import were sold.3. opposing the ld. advocate, ms. ananya ray, ld. sdr reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned orders and emphasised that the exemption from special additional duty on the goods meant for sale was extended to avoid double taxation and as in the present matters no sales tax/local levies were chargeable on the goods, the applicants had to pay the special additional duty on the goods imported.4. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. the correct interpretation of the proviso to the notification no. 56 of 1998 cus can be considered only at the time of regular hearing. we feel that the applicants have not made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty demanded from them. we, therefore, direct all the applicants to deposit 50% of the duty demanded from them within four weeks from today. on compliance with this direction, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of remaining amount of duty and entire amount of penalty imposed on them and the recovery of the same will remain stayed during the pendency of the appeals. the matter will come up for reporting compliance on 27.07.2001.

Judgment:
1. These are five applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the following amounts of duty confirmed and penalty imposed by the Commissioner Customs, Amritsar.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Name of the Duty PenaltyAppellants------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M/s Tarsem Singh 52,184/- 52,184/-& Sons.M/s Bee Bee Interna- 1,51,296/- 1,51,296/-tional.M/s Gaurav Arora.

67,775/- 67,775/-M/s Gurdas & Co.

52,400/- 52,400/-M/s Jagdish Chander 1,21,541/- 1,21,541/-Sharma.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- 2. Shri G.S. Bhangoo, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner, Customs under different impugned orders has disallowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56 of 1998 CUS dated 01.08.1998 in respect of garlic imported by them holding that no evidence had been produced by the applicants to show that they had paid any sales tax/local tax/other charges on sale of goods as was required under the Notification. The ld. Advocate further submitted that on correct reading of the proviso to Notification No. 56/98 CUS, it would be found that exemption is not to apply if importer sells the said imported goods from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of goods; that the expression "goods" is not qualified by the expression "said" meaning thereby that the area contemplated in the proviso to Notification has to be an area where there is a blanket exemption from tax on sale or purchase irrespective of duty under import; that it is not the case of the Department that there is total exemption from tax on sale or purchase at Amritsar where the impugned goods after import were sold.3. Opposing the ld. Advocate, Ms. Ananya Ray, ld. SDR reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned orders and emphasised that the exemption from Special Additional Duty on the goods meant for sale was extended to avoid double taxation and as in the present matters no sales tax/local levies were chargeable on the goods, the applicants had to pay the Special Additional Duty on the goods imported.

4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The correct interpretation of the proviso to the Notification No. 56 of 1998 CUS can be considered only at the time of regular hearing. We feel that the applicants have not made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty demanded from them. We, therefore, direct all the applicants to deposit 50% of the duty demanded from them within four weeks from today. On compliance with this direction, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of remaining amount of duty and entire amount of penalty imposed on them and the recovery of the same will remain stayed during the pendency of the appeals. The matter will come up for reporting compliance on 27.07.2001.