1995 (9) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upta. The facts of the case are that three dealers of silver ornaments at Rajkot in Gujarat, namely, M/s. Raghubir Meenawala, Rajendra Kumar and D.A. Soni sent four parcels of silver ornaments to three persons at Agra. Raghubir Meenawala sent a post parcel No. 661 addressed to Shri F.C. Jain Dalal, Agra; Rajendra Kumar despatched post parcel No. 285 to Shri Pradeep Kumar and D.A. Soni sent two post parcels Nos. 91 and 94 to Ramesh Chandra Sharaff and H.C. Agarwal, respectively. After their arrival at Agra Post Office, the said parcels were seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi. The consignees aforesaid refused to take delivery of the goods. Thereafter the consignors contacted the present revisionist who agreed to tak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....987 and bill No. 4 dated November 11, 1987 (in Gujarati script of course understandable with difficulty), which bear the name of the different purchasers of Agra stand in testimony of the fact that the purchaser of the disputed ornaments was not the appellant. It is also true that the show cause notice under section 13-A issued by the S.T.O. (Mobile Squad) on January 15, 1988, also contains the details and description of the parcels, in which the disputed silver ornaments were sent to Agra. It is also true that the names mentioned in the show cause notice of the consignees of those goods at Agra also do not include the name of the appellant. Besides that the letters of information (Paper Nos. 10, 19 and 5) dated January 6, 1988, by Deputy D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in respect of those disputed goods, the appellant can be termed and held as the importer of those goods and is liable to stand to explain the breach of non-endorsement of form 31 under section 28-A of the Trade Tax Act." The Tribunal also observed that no sooner the appellant issued form 31 in regard to the disputed goods, than he turned to be the importer of the goods and, therefore, was liable to give form 31 duly endorsed. A perusal of the above finding would show that it was not the dealerrevisionist at whose instance the post parcels containing the silver ornaments arrived into the State of U.P. at Agra. Section 28-A(1) requires that any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the importer") who intends to bring, import o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the consignees, mentioned above, did not take delivery of the goods from the excise authorities. The revisionist's contention that after the aforesaid events, the consignors contacted the revisionist and requested that the goods in question be taken delivery of by the revisionist and be sold as a commission agent of the consignors, has been accepted by the Tribunal. The revisionist took delivery of the goods not from the transporters and, therefore, sub-section (3) of section 28-A of the Act was not applicable. The Tribunal's observation that simply because the dealer furnished form 31 it becomes an importer is not legally sustainable. As is evident from the facts of the case the dealer having not intended to bring import or otherwise r....