TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Clarification on Transfer of Residence Rules exemptions for professionals</h1> <h3>In RE: ANOOP KUMAR</h3> In RE: ANOOP KUMAR - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 985 (G. O. I.) Issues:Demand of duty on personal computer under TR Rules, interpretation of Rule 3, application of Rule 4 for exemption, non-obstante clause in Rule 3, comparison with a similar legal precedent.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the demand of duty on a personal computer under Transfer of Residence (TR) Rules, specifically focusing on the interpretation of Rule 3 and the application of Rule 4 for exemption. The applicant, a Post Doctoral Research Scientist, sought clearance under Rule 4, which was rejected citing Rule 3 disallowing exemption for personal computers. The Board's instructions clarified that personal computers listed in Rule 3 cannot be cleared duty-free under any other rule, including Rule 4.The revisionary authority disagreed with the interpretation of the instructions, highlighting that Rule 3's non-obstante clause only overrules exemptions under Rule 2, not all TR Rules. Rule 4, meant for highly qualified professionals, is considered a specific provision overriding general provisions like Rule 2 and 3. The judgment emphasizes that Rule 3 operates solely on Rule 2, and any other interpretation would ignore the explicit non-obstante clause in Rule 3.Drawing support from a legal precedent involving a non-obstante clause in a different rule, the judgment concludes that Rule 3's reference to 'these rules' is limited to Rule 2 of the TR Rules, not all rules within the Transfer of Residence framework. Consequently, the applicant is granted the benefit of Rule 4 at Nil rate of duty for the personal computer, subject to fulfilling the conditions for Rule 4 benefit as determined by the Assistant Collector. Similar cases are disposed of accordingly with consequential relief granted.In summary, the judgment clarifies the scope of Rule 3's non-obstante clause, emphasizes the specificity of Rule 4 for qualified professionals, and provides a detailed analysis of how the rules within the TR framework interact to grant exemptions. The application of legal principles and the comparison with a relevant legal precedent strengthen the decision to grant the applicant the benefit of Rule 4 for duty exemption on the personal computer and peripherals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
