| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/68484 |
| Court | Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi |
| Decided On | Mar-30-1996 |
| Reported in | (1996)59ITD268(Delhi) |
| Appellant | Indian Delco (P.) Ltd. |
| Respondent | Deputy Commissioner of |
2. To set out the relevant and brief facts of the case, the appellant in this case is a Pvt. Ltd. company engaged in the business of metal printing, coating, varnishing, lacquering and sizing, etc. Its turnover during the year under appeal was Rs. 3,70,15,570 which included sales to UNICEF amounting to Rs. 2,58,26,371. These sales were claimed by the assessee to be its "export sales" for purposes of relief under section 80HHC.3. The order for the aforesaid purchases had been placed by UNICEF under the aid-programme of the UNO and this required goods to be consigned/delivered to designated consignees as specified by UNICEF.The Assessing Officer has recorded findings of fact to the effect that all designated consignees were stationed in India and the assessee had not placed any evidence on record to show that the goods were actually sent out of India by its efforts or through the designated consignees of UNICEF. The Assessing Officer, however, noted and this not being disputed before us that the payment for the sales made to UNICEF was received in "convertible foreign exchange". On the basis of the aforesaid facts the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 31,29,786 under section 80HHC.4. The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause letter to the assessee dated 3-9-1990 asking it to explain as to why the claim be not denied since the deduction was admissible in respect of goods or merchandise exported out of India subject to certain other conditions being fulfilled. In reply to the show cause the assessee filed a letter dated 15-10-1990 wherein it raised numerous arguments with reference to the provisions of the section, i.e., 80HHC, the purpose in introducing the said section, the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 and the Import and Export Policy itself. As many as 31 arguments were advanced and these have been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the but summing up the two main points raised by assessee in support of its claim, namely, that the export by the assessee was a "deemed export" eligible for deduction and the primary purpose of introducing and giving relief under section 80HHC was the earning of "convertible foreign exchange".
5. The Assessing Officer after considering the detailed reply of the assessee proceeded to reject the arguments advanced by dealing with each and every argument. In doing so, she observed as under : "6.1 I have considered the contention of the assessee. The section 80HHC (1) & (2) as applicable to assessment year 1988-89 provides that (1) where an assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company) resident in India, is engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which this section applies, there shall in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction equal to the aggregate of - (b) fifty per cent of so much of the profits derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise as exceeds the amount referred to in clause (a) : Provided that the deduction under the sub-section shall not exceed the profits derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise : Provided further that an amount equal to the amount of the deduction claimed under this sub-section is debited to the profit and loss account of the previous year in respect of which the deduction is to be allowed and credited to a reserve account to be utilised for the purposes of the business of the assessee.
(2) (a) This section applies to all goods or merchandise other than those specified in clause (b), if the sale proceeds of such goods or merchandise exported out of India are receivable by the assessee inconvertible foreign exchange.
(b) This section does not apply to the following goods or merchandise, namely : 6.2 A reading of the above provisions of section 80HHC makes it clear that the first part of the sub-section provides for condition for eligibility of deduction under section 80HHC while the second half deals with the computation of deduction admissible. The other sub-section of section 80HHC either elaborate the provisions of section 80HHC (1) or explain the terms used therein.
The various conditions of eligibility of deduction under section 80HHC can be enumerated as under : 1. The assessee should be a company or a person (other than a company) resident in India.
2. The assessee should be engaged in the business of export out of India.
3. The business of export should be of goods and merchandise other than mineral oil and minerals and ores.
4. The sale proceeds of such goods or merchandise exported out of India are receivable by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange.
5. An amount equal to the amount of deduction claimed under this sub-section is debited to the profit and loss account of the previous year in respect of which deduction is to be allowed and credited to the reserve account to be utilised for the purpose of the business of the assessee.
The maximum deduction admissible would be equal to the aggregate of (a) 4% of net foreign exchange realisation; and (b) 50% of so much of the profit derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise as exceeds the amount referred to in (a) above.
Subject to the condition that deduction should not exceed the profits derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise.
6.3 The terms "profits derived from the export of goods or merchandise", "convertible foreign exchange" and "export turnover have been defined in sub-section (3) and Explanation to section 80HHC. The deduction under section 80HHC. The deduction under section 80HHC would not be admissible if any of the conditions are not satisfied.
6.4 In the case of the assessee, it satisfies the conditions at S. Nos.
1, 3, 4, and 5 as discussed in para 3. However, the condition that the assessee should be engaged in the business of export out of India is not satisfied. As discussed above and the fact which is an undisputed one, the assessee has not exported the 'goods out of India'. The goods have been sold in India and the delivery has also been given in India to the packing and forwarding agents of UNICEF.6.5 A perusal of the bill shows that the goods sold were printed EPI posters in Hindi, Urdu and Gurmukhi. These goods have not only been sold in India but appears to have been utilised also in India, under the aid programme undertaken by UNICEF in India. The goods have never crossed the boundaries of India and hence it cannot be said that the assessee was engaged in business of "export out of India".
6.6 The term "export" has not been defined anywhere in the I.T. Act.
The ordinary meaning of the terms export is to send goods outside the country through land, sea or air. Hence the necessary ingredient of export is that the goods must cross the territorial boundaries of a country.
6.7 The words "export out of India" have not been mentioned in section 80HHC(1) alone. They have again been repeated in sub-sections (2) and (3). Further the words "export turnover" as defined in the explanation also make it amply clear that in order to be eligible for deduction under section 80HHC, the specified goods or merchandise must cross the custom station as defined in Customs Act. The relevant portion of the explanations are reproduced for ready reference.
(b) "export turnover" means the sale proceeds receivable by the assessee inconvertible foreign exchange of any goods or merchandise to which this section applies and which are exported out of India, but does not include freight or insurance attributable to the transport of the goods or merchandise beyond Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962).
6.8 It is further clarified in section 80HHC itself that the goods or merchandise should be exported out of India. The words exported out of India are not just due to over-sight but appear a conscious act on the part of Legislature. The incentive under section 80HHC has been allowed in order to achieve twin objectives.
1. The country get convertible foreign exchange so the position of balance of payment improves the market for Indian goods is also developed outside India by exporting goods out of India so that even when there is no incentive as under section 80HHC the Indian overseas market is fully developed and the country's export trade is not adversely affected. This purpose is quite explicit when we read the provision of section 80HHC which exclude certain items of export sales outside the purview of deduction under section 80HHC. If the purpose of section 80HHC was just to earn convertible foreign exchange as argued by the assessee, there was no need to exclude certain category of exports. In that case any sale the payment for which was received in convertible foreign exchange would have qualified for deduction under section 80HHC. However, this is not so. An assessee who get convertible foreign exchange by exporting mineral oil, minerals and ore, is not entitled for deduction under section 80HHC. The assessee's contention that the purpose of introduction of 80HHC was to earn convertible foreign exchange only and the provision of section 80HHC, should be interpreted in the light of this intention of the Legislature, is therefore not correct and acceptable.
6.9 The assessee's further contention that for the purpose of section 80HHC "deemed export" as defined in "Import and Export Policy April 1985 to March 1988", should also be considered, is also not correct. No doubt under the said policy, the supplies made to India to United Nations Organisations or under the Aid programme of United Nations and other multinational agencies at international prices, and paid for in free foreign exchange is included in the definitions of "deemed export", however, there is not concept of "deemed export" as far as Income-tax Act or section 80HHC of Income-tax Act is concerned.
Secondly, as is apparent from the extracts of the Policy (as filed by the assessee itself), the object of the policy is to provide to the Registered Exporter by way of import replenishment, the material (all or some) required in the manufacture of products exported. Thus the purpose of "Import policy for registered exporters" and the purpose of giving incentive under section 80HHC are entirely different and hence the definition of export as given in the Import and Export Policy cannot be applied for giving incentive under section 80HHC. Further as discussed above, we cannot ignore the words "export out of India" appearing in section 80HHC. For claiming deduction under section 80HHC, the goods must be exported out of India. In the present case, the assessee has not been able to lead evidence to show that the goods were exported out of India or not even the evidence that the agents of UNICEF sent the goods out of India.
6.10 As there is no concept of "deemed export" in Income-tax Act, the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Teja Singh 35 ITR 408 is not proper. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if there is a deeming fiction in the Act, the same has to be applied that to all facts on which the fiction can operate. In the present controversy there is no fiction of "deemed export" provided in the Income-tax Act, hence no such fiction can be applied while allowing relief under section 80HHC. The fiction of deemed export under Import and Export Control Act and the orders and policies issued thereunder would apply for implementing the said Act only and for the purpose for which the fiction was created and not to any other Act (to Income-tax Act in the present case) or for any other purpose other than that specified. If the facts or the purpose for which fiction is created, does not exist, there is no question of applying the same fiction to other facts and in other set of circumstances.
6.11 The fact that the assessee is a registered exporter is not material as it is simply a formality which a person has to comply with under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
6.12 It is pertinent to note that even under the Cash Compensatory Support Scheme, separate forms are provided for applying for CCS or exports under Normal Scheme (Form 'N') and CCS under the deemed export scheme (Form D) meaning thereby that the normal meaning of export does no include deemed export unless specifically provided.
6.13 The assessee's further contention that it offered discount at 3% as the payment was made in US dollar, a convertible foreign exchange is not very relevant as by taking payment in convertible foreign exchange the assessee has got benefits under the Import and Export License Act, Cash Compensatory Support Scheme or duty draw back. As far as section 80HHC is concerned, the receipt in convertible foreign exchange for anything in itself would not make a person eligible for deduction, but other conditions too have to be satisfied simultaneously. For the similar reasons, assessee's argument that lower price was charged in the year under consideration as compared to the preceding year as the current year payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, is not acceptable.
6.14 The assessee's further contention that it is the profit derived from export which constitutes the basic for deduction is correct but I do not see how it supports the claim of the assessee. The profit derived from export is the basis of the computation of deduction, however, before the computation starts, it has to be seen that the assessee satisfies the basic conditions of eligibility if the basic conditions of eligibility itself are not satisfied, the fact that there is profit would not make the assessee entitled for deduction. Though the basis of computation has charged from turn-over to profit over the years since section 80HHC was introduced, the basic conditions of eligibility that : 1. There should be export out of India of goods and merchandise other than these specified in section 80HHC(2); and 2. The receipts should be in convertible foreign exchange have remained the same and therefore before allowing the deduction whether it was turnover based or is profit based, the conditions for eligibility have to be satisfied.
6.15 The assessee's contention that since in section 28 profits on sale of import licence, cash assistance and duty draw backs, etc., have been brought to tax as profits and gains of business and since in section 28 Import Control Order 1955, Import and Export (Control) Act 1947, CCS and Custom and Central Excise duties Draw Back Rules, 1971 have been referred, the definition of export under these Acts/Rules should also be followed for giving relief under section 80HHC, is not acceptable as if the Legislature so intended, it would have explicitly provided so in section 80HHC. The fact that words out of India have been used at so many places in section 80HHC, make the intention of Legislature very clear that for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC goods must go out of India.
6.16 The Government has clarified that receipts of sale proceeds in non-convertible rupee from bilateral account countries will be treated at par with sale proceeds received in any other convertible foreign exchange for the purpose of section 80HHC. The assessee's argument that the purpose of giving relief under section 80HHC is to earn convertible foreign exchange only, is therefore defeated as even the payment in rupee from bilateral a/c countries is eligible for deduction under section 80HHC. In fact the purpose of introduction of section 80HHC is not only to earn foreign exchange but also to promote export which can be achieved only when goods are exported out of India and make a market for themselves.
6.17 The assessee's argument that since UNICEF is a sovereign body, the supplies made to in India are exports as recognised in Para 190 of Import and Export Policy (1985-88) is not correct. The supplies to UN Agencies in India are deemed export (if payment is in convertible foreign exchange) and not export. The very fact that there was a need to include this type of transaction in export, by way of providing definition of deemed export shows that in normal circumstances export does not include type of transactions covered under the definition of "deemed export" under the Import Export Policy. As discussed above since there is no concept of deemed export the same cannot be applied to section 80HHC for the purpose of giving deduction.
6.18 If one goes through the various provision of Income-tax Act, it becomes apparent that wherever the Legislature wanted to provide for a deemed fiction, it has specifically provided such examples can be seen in sections 7, 9, section 27, sections 68, 69-A, 69-B, 69-C, 69-D, etc., if no such deeming fiction has been provided in section 80HHC, the same cannot be imported from some other law or rule which has been enacted with a different purpose. Under the import and export policy also, it is not said that "export means" but it simply say that the certain types of deemed export will also qualify for import replenishment licence. Thus even the Import & Export Policy or Import and Export Control Act does not say that export means deemed word as such. The purpose of inclusive definition is to include something more in the definition which otherwise it would not have meant and therefore an inclusive definition has to be applied only for the purpose for which it has been enacted and the same cannot be applied for any purpose other than that for which it has been enacted. The inclusive definition of transfer under the Income-tax Act cannot be applied for any purpose other than that for which it has been enacted. The inclusive definition of transfer under the Income-tax Act cannot be applied to cases under other Act. Similarly an inclusive definition of "export" under any other law or Rule cannot be ipso facto applied to Income-tax Act. The assessee-company has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Agarwal & Co. wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for the purpose of finding who are the partners of a firm one has only to look to the partnership deed and that the definition of a person under section 2(9) of Income-tax Act, 1922 cannot be imported into the Partnership Act. It is argued by the assessee that in view of the ratio of the judgment the definition of export under the Import and Export Control Act which deals with exports should be adopted for the purpose of Income-tax also. This contention is not correct and acceptable. The definition of export in the import and export policy is for the limited purpose of import replenishment. Further for the purpose of section 80HHC, it is clearly stated that the goods shared be exported out of India, hence the definition of export under the Import & Export Policy cannot be applied for deduction under section 80HHC.6.19 In view of the facts discussed above, assessee's claim of deduction under section 80HHC cannot be entertained as the assessee has not exported goods out of India." 6. Being aggrieved the assessee came up in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before whom the arguments advanced were identical to those tendered before the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) approved of the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the assessee's claim on absolutely identical lines. She echoed the view that the deduction could be allowed only if the goods sold crossed the territorial boundaries of India and in the present case it was an undisputed fact that these had not crossed the territorial boundaries of India. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also referred to the argument advanced by the assessee on the subject of "deemed exports" as discussed in the Import and Export Policy. She agreed with the Assessing Officer on the question that this was only for the limited purpose of disbursing import replenishment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also rejected the argument advanced by the assessee to the effect that the main object of introducing section 80HHC was to earn convertible foreign exchange as according to her export of goods outside the country was also a necessary pre-requisite in addition to earning convertible foreign exchange.
7. Being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee has preferred this second appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee argued at length the case of the assessee reiterating substantially the view-point canvassed before the tax authorities. It would suffice for purposes of disposing of the present appeal in case his arguments are summarised as under : (i) The assessee was a registered exporter and the sale proceeds had been received in convertible foreign exchange; (ii) The primary object of introducing section 80HHC was to earn precious foreign exchange; (iii) The section applies as soon as the sale proceeds were received in convertible foreign exchange; (iv) The words "exported outside India" were not relevant for purposes of deciding the claim under section 80HHC; (v) The assessee had received various import benefits within the meaning of section 28 and the entitlement for these arose as soon as the assessee had exported goods and which in this case were the sales to UNICEF; (vi) UNICEF could not take these goods outside India, since under the Aid programme these were required to be disbursed to various institutions in India. UNICEF being a wing of the UNO was exempt from various types of clearances and duties which otherwise were mandatory for purposes of effecting exports and imports; (vii) That UNICEF could not be compelled to take goods outside India and in fact the sale to it tantamounted to import by it and hence an export by the assessee; (viii) That the benefit of section 80HHC was available to a "supporting manufacturer" as well and who was not the actual exporter and this in fact meant that the stress was on earning foreign exchange rather than undertaking an export; (ix) Explanation (aa) to section 80HHC which was introduced by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1-4-1986 used three terms, viz. shop, emporium or any other establishment and the last mentioned term, viz. "any other establishment" should be considered with reference to the earlier two terms and not be widely construed to include any other institution such as the present assessee. In other words, any other establishment should also be of the same type as a shop or emporium. That this amendment should be read strictly and since the assessee did not come under its purview, is automatically meant that sales made by it to UNICEF constituted exports out of India; and (x) Under the Trade Policy the sales to UNICEF were treated as "deemed exports" and at par with other exports.
8. To sum up his arguments the learned counsel urged that the section be interpreted in a manner which advanced the object which lay behind its introduction and which, according to him, was the earning of foreign exchange. The other argument to which he adverted was that since one wing of the Government dealing with imports and exports had treated such a sale as a deemed export, any other wing of the Government could not treat it differently and deny to an assessee the benefit to which it was entitled. He in fact went to the length of contending that the import and export policy superseded the interpretation arrived at by the Revenue authorities and since the determination of what was an export was within the domain of an authority other than the revenue authorities the view of the former would prevail.
9. In support of his arguments the learned counsel referred at length to the compilation filed by him during the course of the hearing before us and also placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Burlingtons of Bombay v. Third ITO [1992] 40 ITD 384.
10. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly supported the orders passed by the tax authorities and the subsequent arguments advanced by him were a reiteration of the reasons recorded by the said tax authorities in rejecting the assessee's claim.
He, however, highlighted the following : (i) Section 80HHC itself excluded certain items for purposes of allowing benefit such as oils, minerals, etc., and this clearly reflected the intention of the Legislature that all exports and all earnings in foreign exchange would not be entitled to get the benefit; (ii) The heading of section 80HHC itself stressed on exports and not the earning in foreign exchange whereas certain other sections such as 80HHD were primarily concerned with foreign exchange and no exports. Assessee had not exported any goods outside India other than the sales to UNICEF. In other words, the assessee could not be treated as an exporter; (iii) The section itself laid stress on the words "goods exported outside India" and this meant that the goods had to cross the territorial boundries of India plus various other conditions were to be fulfilled to entitle an assessee to claim deduction under section 80HHC; (iv) That the facts of the present case clearly revealed that the goods sold to UNICEF were meant to be utilised in India; (v) The Trade Policy of the Government was not relevant for purposes of interpreting a provision of the Income-tax Act and since the latter did not provide any deeming fiction for treating a sale transaction such as the one under consideration as an "export" resort could not be taken to any other enactment, order or policy for deeming said sale transaction as an "export"; (vi) That the deeming fiction contained in the trade policy was only for the limited purpose of providing certain benefits and this could not be extended to cover all transactions under every enactment; and (vii) Explanation (aa) to section 80HHC clearly excluded from the term "export out of India" sale or other transactions in a shop emporium or any other establishment. That the assessee came clearly under the term "any other establishment".
11. In concluding his arguments, the learned Departmental Representative urged that the orders passed by the tax authorities be confirmed. According to him, the judgment of the Bombay Tribunal relied upon by the assessee's counsel was distinguishable on facts and law and not at all applicable.
12. In his short reply the learned counsel prayed that the present case be decided on its own peculiar facts more so when the purchaser, viz., UNICEF was not subject to any restriction since it was exempt from all types of import and export regulations. According to the learned counsel the movement of goods under these circumstances was not a determining factor and the sales effected to UNICEF in India be treated as exports outside India entitling relief under section 80HHC.13. We have examined the rival submissions and perused the material on record to which our attention was invited during the course of the hearing. The provisions of section 80HHC which are under consideration lay down the following two conditions in addition to certain other criteria to be satisfied before an assessee becomes entitled to requisite deduction : (1) The assessee should be engaged in the business of export out of India.
(2) Sale proceeds of goods or merchandise exported out of India are receivable in convertible foreign exchange.
14. In other words, the aforesaid twin conditions have to be satisfied as these are not alternative, but cumulative. It is an accepted fact in this case that the goods have not crossed the territorial boundaries of India and for that matter the customs station as defined in section 2(13) of the Customs Act, 1962. In ordinary terms the word "export" means sending goods outside a country by land, sea or air. In the present case, the goods admittedly were purchased for being used for the aid programmes undertaken by UNICEF in India and these never went outside the country either through UNICEF or its designated consignees who are all stationed in India.
15. The assessee no doubt satisfies the other condition of receiving the sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange but this in our opinion would not justify the deduction under section 80HHC, since the primary purpose and motive in introducing the provision was two fold, i.e., one to earn foreign exchange and swell the country's foreign exchange reserves and secondly to encourage exports and carve a niche in the foreign markets. The arguments of the learned counsel to the contrary are therefore not well founded.
16. Adverting to the argument of the learned counsel with reference to the Import & Export Policy (hereinafter referred to as "Policy") treating supplies to UN Organisations as "deemed exports" we are of the view that a deeming provision in one enactment cannot be imported into another enactment. The Policy does not define what an "export" means, but merely treats certain types of sales/supplies as "deemed exports" and that also for the limited purpose of providing import replenishment. As rightly opined by the Assessing Officer the Legislature has not provided for any deeming fiction in section 80HHC and wherever it wanted it has done so, such as, sections 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D and various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the absence of a deeming fiction in section 80HHC support cannot be derived from the Policy which treats supplies to UNICEF as "deemed exports".
17. The argument of the learned counsel to the effect that earning in convertible foreign exchange was the primary condition to be fulfilled stands belied by the observation of the Assessing Officer in para 6.16 of her order to the effect that "sale proceeds in non-convertible rupee from bilateral account countries would be treated at par with sale proceeds received in any other convertible foreign exchange for the purpose of section 80HHC". According to the Assessing Officer, a clarification has been issued by the Government to this effect. This observation of the Assessing Officer is not challenged before us by the assessee.
18. Much stress has been laid on the terms "Profit derived from export" and "export turnover" for the contention that the assessee is a registered exporter and has derived profit from exports during the year under consideration entitling it to the deduction under section 80HHC, but we find that the plea has been rejected by the Assessing Officer and very rightly on the reasoning that these terms are relevant at the computation stage and prior to this the assessee has to satisfy the basic conditions of eligibility which include export out of India and receipts being in convertible foreign exchange.
19. Another argument of the learned counsel was to the effect that the Import and Export Policy was all supreme in matters of export, etc., and it overrode the provisions of the Income-tax Act. According to him, one wing of the Government could not take away what had been given by another wing. We are unable to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel in the light of the earlier discussion more so when the consideration of a sale/supply as a "deemed export" in a different Act or Policy is for the limited and specific purpose of giving certain benefits. This cannot be extended to the Income-tax Act, viz., section 80HHC which sets out specific conditions of eligibility.
20. We would now refer to the arguments of the learned counsel with reference to Explanation (aa) to section 80HHC, which reads as under : "[(aa) 'export out of India' shall not include any transaction by way of sale or otherwise, in a shop, emporium or any other establishment situate in India, not involving clearance at any customs station as defined in the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962);]" 21. According to the learned counsel transactions other than those specifically excluded by this Explanation from the term "export out of India" would necessarily be included. He also waned us to understand the meaning of the term "any other establishment" in the same manner and in continuation of the terms "in a shop, emporium". We find ourselves unable to subscribe to the line of reasoning put forth by the learned counsel and opine that the Explanation in question excludes from the term "export out of India" sales effected in a shop, emporium or any other establishment not involving clearance at any customs station. The assessee, in our opinion, falls under the category of "any other establishment". It is not necessary, according to us, that such an establishment should have the features or looks of a shop, emporium or any other such structure. Further the stress is on the words "not involving clearance at any customs station". This again supports the Revenue's case that sending of the goods outside India is also a condition to be satisfied for purposes of section 80HHC.22. In the final analysis, we uphold the action of the tax authorities in rejecting the claim of the assessee under section 80HHC opining in he process that the solitary judgment of the Tribunal relied upon is not applicable since it dealt with the law relevant for assessment year 1984-85 and it is not disputed before us that the law underwent a change with effect from 1-4-1986 by insertion of Explanation (aa) by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991. The Tribunal at page 390 of the report takes due note of this.