JUDGMENT S.L. Saraf, J.
1. The applicant carries on business of manufacturing and selling fruit and vegetable products. During the assessment year 1975-76 the applicant had exported goods worth Rs. 6,37,038.49 to the Russian buyers and the same were in the course of export out of the territory of India, for which, the applicant claimed exemption under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act") read with Article 286 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the applicant, however, was rejected by the assessing authority who imposed tax at 10 per cent amounting to Rs. 67,672.78. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, Allahabad, which was also rejected. As against the same, a further appeal was filed before the Sales Tax Tribunal, who confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals, on March 29, 1990. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision-application and prays for setting aside of the said orders passed by the sales tax authorities.
2. From the records, it appears that the applicant has appointed United Breweries Limited as its authorised indenting agent by a letter dated January 3, 1975 for promotion of sales in foreign countries in consideration of United Breweries Limited being entitled to all the benefits derived from the utilisation of import entitlements. The United Breweries Limited were authorised to promote sales either directly or through any other body corporate, individual or other persons for that purpose. It was also stipulated in the said agreement that at no point of time, the property in the goods manufactured by the applicant would be transferred to United Breweries even when the goods were sought to be supplied by the applicant in execution of the contract entered by United Breweries Ltd. with any body, corporate, individual or any other person. Further, the property in the goods would always remain with the assessee-applicant and in their custody and the assessee would be the owners of the same till the property in the goods was transferred to the foreign buyers.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid authorisation United Breweries Ltd., had entered into a contract with the State Trading Corporation of India (in short, "STC") to secure, export order for and on behalf of the applicant for supply of mango juice to Sojuzplodoimport, Moscow. The STC was to get 1 per cent of the value of the goods shipped as consideration for securing the order from foreign buyers. In effect, STC had acted as a sub-agent of the applicant for procuring the export orders for supply of 400 M.T. of mango juice. Paragraph 9 of the agreement provided as follows :
"9. Passing of property :
Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this contract,--
(a) the property in the goods agreed to be supplied under this contract shall remain in the suppliers and shall not pass to the STC until after the goods have actually crossed the customs frontiers of India ; and
(b) the suppliers shall transfer the documents of title to the goods to STC only after the goods have actually crossed the customs frontiers of India."
4. The goods were manufactured by the revisionist-applicant at Bareilly and since the applicant had to export the goods, it filed an application in form AR-4 before the Central excise authorities and thereafter the goods were booked to the Russian buyer through the shipping agent of the applicant. In the bill of lading, the certificate of shipping agent and other shipping documents, the applicant was shown as consignor and the Russian buyer as consignee. The invoice was drawn by the applicant in favour of the Russian buyer. The bill of lading also disclosed that the applicant was the exporter and United Breweries Ltd. and STC were agents of the applicant. From the records it appears that the goods were manufactured and packed by the revisionist in accordance with the specifications of the foreign buyer and the same were exported by the applicant as principal whereas United Breweries Limited and the State Trading Corporation had acted as agents of the revisionist-applicant. On these facts, it was urged on behalf of the applicant that the sale of the goods by the applicant was in course of the export out of the territory of India and was effected by transfer of documents of title of the goods after the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India, as such, there could be no imposition of tax and the same was exempt under Section 5(1) of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in C.T. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1997] 104 STC 94, and submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the said decision. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid sale was not in course of export and the sale was made by the revisionist to the STC who exported the said goods in favour of the Russian buyer.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. In my opinion, the sale made by the applicant-revisionist, was in course of the export and it was entitled to exemption under Section 5(1) of the Act. The revisionist had sold the goods to the Russian buyer after stating "A/c. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd." The bill of lading, invoice and all other shipping documents were in the name of the revisionist-applicant as consignor and the Russian buyer as consignee. The duty drawback benefit accrued entirely to the revisionist. There was no endorsement on the bill of lading in favour of the STC that would suggest transfer of goods to the STC. The typing of the words "A/c. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd." below the name and address of the applicant does not constitute an endorsement. There was no endorsement upon the bill of lading signed by or on behalf of the consignee, Russian buyer. The applicant had claimed the benefit of excise duty by filing form AR-4 which was duly allowed. Certificates of shipping agent, Chambers of Commerce and Industries, Food Ministry and excise authorities supported the case of the revisionist regarding export to the foreign buyer. On the aforesaid facts, it is abundantly clear that the applicant was the principal exporting the goods to the foreign buyer and the STC and the United Breweries Ltd. were only acting as agents or sub-agents of the applicant to secure the export orders at a commission or on entitlement basis in terms of their respective agreements. The agreement with the foreign buyer by the STC was an integral part of the agreement with the applicant to export the goods by the applicant to the foreign buyer.
7. In view of the above discussion, the revision application succeeds and the same is allowed. The orders passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal and the authorities below are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.