RAM RATAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against an appellate order of the additional Commissioner, Customs and Excise, Rajasthan, reversing the original order of the Collector, Jodhpur whereby the appellants request for refund of customs duty under sec. 57 of the Marwar Customs Act. 1949, was allowed.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. A short and interesting point is involved for determination in this appeal. The appellants imported tobacco form Gujarat into Rajasthan without paying the Central Excise duty in Gujrat. The customs duty was however, levied of the tobacco shown in the beejak plus the central excise duty which was payable by the appellant in Rajasthan on the sale of the imported tobacco The appellant applied for refund of that portion of the customs duty which was levied on the central excise duty being added to the price of the tobacco. The Collector allowed the request on the ground that sec. 43 of the Customs Act authorised levy of the Customs duty on real price only. The first appellate court however, reversed the order of the Collector and held that the clarification issued by the Commissioner, Customs and Excise on the point was binding. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Government has drawn our attention to a letter No. D. 2779 -SR/50, dated 7.6.50 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Separate Revenue Department, to the Commissioner, Customs and Excise Rajasthan, saying that "the existing practice of levying customs duty on all goods imported on the basis of their total value should continue". The clarification referred to by the lower appellate court is said to have been based on this letter. It is clear that while interpreting the provisions of a statutory law, such letters or notifications are not of much significance. In A.I.R. 1954 Calcutta, 151 a question arose as to the validity of similar instruction issued by the Central Board of Revenue and their lordships were pleased to observed that "these paragraphs clearly embody mere instruction of the Central Board of Revenue having on force of law and being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act they are clearly invalid and ineffective. As pointed out by the learned Collector in his carefully written judgment the provisions contained in sec. 43 of the Marwar Customs Act lay down that the real value shall be deemed to be the wholesale price for which goods of the like kind or quality are sold or are capable of being sold at the time at which and the place form which they are imported or exported, less trade discounts and other incidental charges. In the explanation appended to this section, it is further made clear that if a beejak or other document accompanies the goods, it shall be used as prima facie evidence of the real value of such goods. As laid down in sec. 37 of the Act the owner of any goods liable to ad valorem duty is bound to produce at the customs post concerned the beejak or other document whereby the real value and description of the goods can be ascertained. To substitute total value for real value as is done in the Government letter referred to above is clearly inconsistent with the express provision of the Act. It is an admitted fact that no excise duty was paid in Guerat or was charged by the seller form the appellant and form that reason it was not included in the beejak produced by the appellant. The real value of the goods for purposes of customs duty shall be determined in accordance with the principles referred to above and we are therefore, of the opinion the learned Additional Commissioner is untenable. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the other of the Additional Commissioner, Customs and Excise and restore that of the Collector, Jodhpur.