Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai vs M/S.Micro Labs Ltd on 7 October, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/351/2005
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus No-223/2005 dated 22.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Appellant
Versus
M/s.Micro Labs Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance:
Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR Shri T.V. Suresh Kumar, Adv. For the Appellant For the Respondents CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 07.10.2009 Date of pronouncement :
Final Order No.____________ The respondents herein presented a bill of entry dated 12.01.2005 for assessment and clearance of measuring tapes along with other goods like stethoscope holder and testing pin etc. For the import of measuring tapes, registration with the Department of Weights and Measures in accordance with the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as SWM Act) was required. Since the importer was not so registered, the measuring tapes were held to be liable for confiscation. Show-cause notice was waived and personal hearing was granted to the importers by the Additional Commissioner of Customs who held that the registration was mandatory for export or import of any weight or measure under Section 47 of the SWM Act. He, therefore, ordered confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 47 of the SWM Act, 1976 with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.80,000/- along with applicable duty, and also imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the importer under Section 112 (a) ibid. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the importers that they were neither dealers nor manufacturers and set aside the adjudication order, hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. I have heard both sides. In terms of Section 47(1), no dealer or manufacturer shall export or import any weight or measure unless he is registered under the Section as such exporter or importer as the case may be. Section 2 (c) of the SWM Act defines a dealer as a person who, or a firm or a Hindu Undivided Family, which carried on, directly or otherwise, the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing any such weight or measure, whether for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, and includes
(i) a commission agent who carries on such business on behalf of any principal,
(ii) an importer who sells, supplies, distributes or otherwise delivers any weight or measure to any user, manufacturer, repairer, consumer or any other person, but does not include a manufacturer who sells, supplies, distributes or otherwise delivers any weight or measure to any person or category of persons referred to in this clause.
3. In the light of the above, the importers clearly fall within the definition of dealer as importers who distribute weights or measures and do not fall under the excluded category as they are not manufacturers of weights and measures. Since the importers fall within the definition of dealer under the SWM Act, registration is mandatory and since they did not possess a Registration Certificate, the Additional Commissioner rightly held that the goods were liable to confiscation and the importers liable to penalty. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Pronounced in open court on )
(JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
VICE-PRESIDENT
ksr
13-10-2009
??
??
??
??
2