LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI-I versus M/S SEIKO BRUSHWARE INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 395 COMMISSIONER.OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI-I A v. M/S SEIKO BRUSHWARE INDIA (Civil Appeal No. 216 of 2007) SEPTEMBER 04, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ] B Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 - ss. 7, 3 - Customs Tariff Act, 1975-s. 3A(1)-ExemptionNotificationNo. 34198-Cus. C dated 13.06. 1998- Benefit of exemption - On facts, sale of imported pig hair bristles by importer - Denial of benefit of e"<emption Notification since the pig hair bristles were sold \vithout any sales tax beir.g paid- Challenge to- Importer's case that pig hair bristles may be exempted from sales tax 0 but that did not mean that they were not chargeable to sales tax - Commissioner held that Exemption Notification exempting pig hair bristles from tax would amount to a case where no tax is chargeable on the sale of goods, thus, the benefit of the Notification would not be available to the E impo11er - However, tribunal held in favour of assessee - On appeal, held: On a reading of ss. 3 and 7 of the 1975 Act, it becomes clear that no sales tax is charged on the imported item-pig bristles - Proviso to the Notification dated 13. 06. 1998 gets attracted and since no tax is chargeable on F the sale of such goods, the Ex£1mption Notification would not apply -- Judgment of tribunal set aside and that of the Commissioner restored - Notification - Exemption Notification No. 34198-Cus. dated 13.06.1998. CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 216 of2007. Frorn the Judgment and Order Nos. 260-261/2005 - G 395 H 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A NB(C) No. 1343 dated 22.02.2005 of the Customs, Excise and Service TaxAppellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeals Nos. E/225-226 of 2004- NB(C). B Arijit Prasad, Baldev, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. Rajesh Kumar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Despite service, nobody appears C for the respondent. 2. We have heard Shri Arijit Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. D 3. The issue in this appeal relates to the denial of the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 34/98-Cus. dated 13.06.1998 which reads as follows:- E F G H "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3AofCustoms Tariff Act, 1975 (51of1975), the Central Government having regard to the maximum sales tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being leviable on the like goods on their sale or purchase in India, hereby specifies the rates of special additional duty as indicated in column (3) in table below in respect of goods, when imported into India, specified in corresponding entry in column(2) of the said table and falling within First Schedule to the said Customs Tariff Act:" Against the relevant entry 'Nil' rate has been specified for All goods falling under the said First Schedule which are imported for sale as such, other than by way of high sea sale and the importer at the time of importation or at the time of clearances of warehoused goods for home consumption under the provisions of Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 (no. 52 of 1962), as the case may, makes a COMMNR.OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI-Iv. SEIKO 397 BRUSHWARE INDIA[R. F. NARIMAN, J.] specified declaration to that effect in the Bill of Entry in the A manner specified below. Provided that rate specified therein shall not apply if the importer sells the said imported' goods from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or B purchase of goods." 4. A reading of this Notification would sh0w that exemption is granted only in respect of such goods which the importer sells post importation from a place located in an area where c no tax is chargeable on sale of goods. 5. The facts of the present case are that pig hair bristles that were imported were sold in the years 1998-1999 and 1999- 2000. Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 26.03.2003 0 stating that since these pig hair bristles were, in fact, sold without any sales tax been paid thereon, the benefit of Exemption Notification dated 13.06.1998 would not be available to the importer in the present case. 6. By a reply dated 17 .10.2003, the importer essentially E contended that pig hair bristles may be exempted from sales tax but that did not mean that they were not chargeable to sales tax. 7. In a detailed order dated 31.03.2004, the learned F Commissioner, after setting out the Notification dated 13.06.1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.