Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Quality Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 27 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987(13)ECR119(TRI.-DELHI), 1987(30)ELT447(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.P. Gulati, Member (T)
1. This appeal was originally filed as revision application and on statutory transfer is being treated as if it were an appeal filed before this Tribunal. The appeal is against the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs. Bombay.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants had imported one Oscillator Tube which failed in performance during the guarantee period and another tube was sent as replacement therefor by the suppliers. The appellant was called upon to pay duty in respect of this replacement tube. The tube was supplied at no charge basis by the suppliers for failure of the earlier tube during the guarantee period. The appellants' claim for benefit under Notification 80/70, dated 29-8-1970 was turned down by the lower authorities as the goods were not held to be the private personal property of the importers who are a public limited company. The appellant's plea is that the item imported cannot be termed as trade goods as they were not engaged in sale and purchase of Article imported and the Oscillator tube was required to be used as a component part of machinery used for manufacture of pipes and tubes by them. Learned Consultant for the appellants adverted to the notification which for the convenience of reference is reporduced as under :
"The Central Government has exempted articles and component parts thereof, when imported respectively for the replacement of defective articles or of component parts thereof, from the whole of the duty of Customs leviable thereon, subject to the following conditions, namely :
(i) the defective articles were brought into India earlier from places outside India and are private personal properties of the importer;
(ii) the articles or component parts thereof, as the case may be, are imported within the warranty period and are supplied free of charge by the foreign manufacturer in terms of the warranty given by the manufacturer in accordance with the established trade practice pertaining to the articles;
(iii) the repairs including replacement of the defective parts are done free of charge by the manufacturer through his agent or branch in India; and
(iv) the defective articles or component parts thereof if not "re-exported, are destroyed or surrendered to the Customs."
3. Regarding condition No.
(i) the appellant's plea is that the defective articles, for which replacement had been received, was earlier imported. The learned Consultant has pleaded that the lower authorities have not interpreted the provisions of the notification correctly by holding that it cannot be considered as private personal property of the appellants. The learned Consultant has conceded that no doubt the appellants are a public limited company, but contended, that in the eyes of law a public limited company is also a person. The learned Consultant's plea is that Oscillator Tube to be replaced was the personal private property of ¦ the Company. He pleaded that the word 'personal' has not been defined in the notification and therefore in this background resort should be had to the Central Clauses Act as envisaged in the Constitution. According to him the company is a legal person. He further pleaded that the object of the notification was to avoid double taxation in respect of goods found defective during the warranty period. He pointed out the tube replaced should be treated as personal private property of the company. He, however, could not show as to how the word 'personal' be taken to mean as pleaded by him. The learned SDR for the department, Shri Gopinath stated that the word 'personal' means appertaining to the person and cited the meaning of the word 'personal' as given in the Black's Law Dictionary. The same is reporduced below for convenience of reference :
PERSONAL :"Appertaining to the person: belonging to an individual; limited to the person; having the nature or pertaining of the qualities of human beings, or of movable property."
His plea is that the notification covers only such of those goods which have been imported by an individual as baggage or otherwise. Shri Santhanam, learned Consultant for the appellants in reply stated that notification should be read according to legislature's intent and interpretation should be such as would advance the object of the notification. He cited the following case-law in support of his plea :
(i) 1983 (12) ELT 24 (Delhi) - Modi Rubber Ltd. v.
U.O.I. and Ors.
(ii) 1983 ELT 34 (Madras) - Indian Organic Chemi-
cals Ltd. v. U.O.I. and
others.
(iii) 1983 ELT 1017 (CEGAT) - Hercules Tyre and
Rubber Industries, Rai,
Sonepat (Haryana) v.
CC & E, Chandigarh.
He also cited case-law to show as to how the word 'individual' is set out under Income Tax Act was understood. It was pointed out to the learned Consultant that the said case-law was relevant only in the context of Income Tax Act and could not be taken to be of general import.
4. The question that arises for consideration before us in the light of the orders passed by the lower authorities and the pleas before us is as to what should be the meaning assigned to the words 'private personal property' as used in the notification. The word 'personal' as pointed out by the learned SDR means "appertaining to the person; belonging to the individual." The word 'Private' as defined in Black's Law Dictionary means which pertains to a private individual. The word 'private' is defined in different dictionaries as under :
"PRIVATE"
1. Black's Law Dictionary :
"Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from public generally. Not official; not clothed with office.
2. Word 'private' has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as :
"(of person) not holding public office or official position. Kept or removed from public knowledge or observation, one's own individual, personal, not affecting the community."
3. Concise Oxford Dictionary 'Personal' means as :
"One's own, individual, private; of the body and clothing
5. From the above, we observe the word 'private and personal can be taken to mean as belonging to an individual in private capacity In the absence of the definition of the words 'private and personal' in the notification, we have necessarily to adopt the meaning of the words as are understood in comon parlance during their day-to-day use.
6. In view of the above, we hold that the benefit of notification in terms of the first proviso in the Notification No. 80/70 would be available only if the goods are imported as replacement of those which are the individual's private personal property and not of a firm. The case-law cited by the appellants in support of their plea that the notification should be so interpreted as to advance the intention of the framers of the notification does not help the appellants inasmuch as in the cases cited it has been clearly held that while interpreting the notification, there is no room for intendment and unless meanings flow from the clear language of notification the benefit cannot be given by reading the intention into it. The words used in the notification do not lend themselves to the interpretation as placed by the appellants on the wording of the notification. The lower authority's order, hold in view of the above is maintainable in law and the appeal is rejected.