Case Law Details
Ratnagiri Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Karnataka High Court)
The Supreme Court in Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. supra while considering the expression ‘for use’ in Section 5(2)(a)(v) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act held that the aforesaid expression means intended for use. It was further held that inability to prove the actual use or the fact that use was some purpose in addition to that stated in the certificate of the use is irrelevant. It was further held that if the intention of the legislature was to limit the exemption only to such goods sold as were actually used by the undertaking in generation and distribution of electrical energy, the phraseology used in exemption clause would have been different such as ‘goods actually’ used or ‘goods used’.
It is well settled in law that exemption Notification has to be interpreted strictly and the burden of proving applicability is on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of exemption clause or exemption Notification. It is equally well settled legal proposition that if ambiguity in exemption Notification is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. [See: DILIP KUMAR supra]. From conjoint reading of the entry made in the Notification dated 01.03.2002 as well as the Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance and the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., it is evident that the expression ‘for use’ means intended for use. In Entry 252 A, the expression ‘for use’ has been used, which means intended for use as well. The Notification does not stipulate a condition of proof for end use in order to claim exemption. It is pertinent to mention here that wherever the benefit of a Notification is granted subject to condition of actual use, in such a case, the Notification has used the words ‘only, exclusively or entirely’. In this connection, we may refer to Entry 250 in the Notification dated 01.03.2002, which grants exemption subject to actual use and adherence to concessional rate of duty as a condition in the Notification. In view of the Circular issued by the Finance Department, dated 11.01.2005, it is evident that the Entry in question does not suffer from any ambiguity and does not impose any condition of actual use. The tribunal therefore, erred in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification.
Even otherwise, there is ample material on record to show that the goods were used in tea, coffee and rubber plantation sector viz., the communication dated 04.08.2007 and 12.09.2007 issued by Joint Agricultural Director and the Government of Karnataka, Department of Agriculture, communication dated 20.07.2007 issued by Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and the statements given by the dealers that the goods are meant to be used in tea, coffee and rubber plantation. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the revenue that the goods were used for non plantation sectors and the appellant was guilty of suppression of facts does not deserve acceptance as the documents referred to supra were filed before the authorities. It is also pertinent to note that the tribunal has not recorded any finding that the goods in question were used for non plantation sectors. Even otherwise, the exemption Notification does not stipulate a condition of proof of end use.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
