2018 (12) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cture for export is made on product specifications identified by the Unique Product Code generated for the purpose of filing returns before the Excise Authorities. 2. The assessee on manufacture of these products for export, stock transfers it on consignment to its godown at Puzhal in Tamil Nadu, which is stated to be a godown for stocking goods exclusively for the purpose of export. The export is from the said godown and it is an admitted fact that certain exports are carried out from the separate manufacturing units itself. 3. The assessee claimed input tax credit of the tax paid on purchase of raw materials from registered dealers to the extent of the stock transfer on consignment, made to the godown of the assessee at Tamil Nadu. The assessee approached the Clarificatory Authority, since it was opined by the assessing authorities that Section 13 would not be applicable since the stock transfer on consignment would not be in the course of export. The Clarificatory Authority found that the stock transfer can be said to be in the course of export only if there is certainty that the goods are headed for their foreign destination and not diverted for domestic use. On facts it was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of India. During the relevant period, the branch office of the respondent purchased ginning machinery and spare components from registered dealers in the State of Haryana and despatched the same to its head office for export out of India in execution of the orders booked from the foreign buyers. The High Court noticed the categorical finding of the Assessing Authority that the orders were received directly by the Head Office from the foreign Country and the goods were not exported directly by the Faridabad dealer. The Tribunal also found that there was no case that the goods were sold by the branch office at Faridabad to Head Office at Calcutta and that the movement of the goods from Faridabad to Calcutta was made in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India, within the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Tribunal, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner finding that the movement of the goods from Branch Office at Faridabad to Head Office was a movement preceding the export. The High Court found that movement of goods from Faridabad to Calcutta was occasioned in the course of export out of the territory of India. The application....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ke production or manufactured for export, is only an act preparatory to export and cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as an act done 'in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India' any more than the other two activities can be so regarded." (emphasis supplied by us) 9. The Constitution Bench in Burmah Shell held so in Paragraph 26 :- "26. From the views here expressed, it follows that every sale or purchase preceding the export is not necessarily to be regarded as within the course of export. It must be inextricably bound up with the export, and a sale or purchase unconnected with the ultimate export as an integral part thereof is not within the exemption. It may thus be taken as settled that sales or purchases for the purpose of export are not protected, unless the sales or purchases themselves occasion the export and are an integral part of it. The views expressed in these two cases were accepted and applied in State of Madras v. Gunviah Naidy and Co. Ltd., AIR 1956 SC 158, Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 790, State of Mysore v. Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co.Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 1002 and Gordhandas Lalji v. B. Banerjee, AIR 195....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to be held that unless the assessee proves that the stock transfer was in pursuance of an export order, there cannot be a contention raised that the stock transfer was in the course of export merely for the reason that the goods have been identified under the Central Excise Act to be exported. Even if there is no diversion of goods and if there is no export, then necessarily the intention is not served and it cannot be said that the benefit conferred specifically for the export of goods should also be extended to those goods manufactured for export, but eventually not actually exported. In fact, on each such stock transfer, the assessee could establish that the transfer of stock on consignment basis to the godown at Tamil Nadu was in pursuance of an export order. However, there cannot be any blanket clarification issued in so far as the entire manufactured goods consigned to the godown at Puzhal in Tamil Nadu being entitled to the refund of input tax under Section 13, categorising the consignment to be one in the course of export. 13. The mere fact that the goods so consigned is manufactured under a Unique Product Code enabling exemption from excise duty and specifically earmark....