1. The petitioner challenges the order of the revisional authority which has affirmed the order of the Appellate Collector.
2. The petitioner was posted abroad and as usual when a person comes back he brings certain necessary electronic gadgets which are not so easily available in this country. So he brought with him amongst others (1) T.V. (2) Video, (3) music system and (4) Kenwood Chef with which we are concerned.
3. The plea of the petitioner was that he had purchased T.V., V.C.R. and music system in April, 1981. He had produced the necessary receipt. He also showed the repair receipts for T.V./Video made in August, 1981 is support of this claim for user over one year, as per T.R. Rules. The Assistant Collector refused his claim for all the items. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector accepted the case of the petitioner with regard to T.V. and V.C.R. as he was of the view that they showed that they have been used. He, thereforee granted T.R. concession to T.V. and V.C.R. while rejecting the claim with regard to concession in respect of the music system and Kenwood Chef with accessories. The petitioner went up in revision and the same was rejected.
4. The petitioner's case was that both the music system and video had been purchased and used a year earlier to the period. In support of purchase of T.V., V.C.R. and music system receipts of 10th April, 1981 were produced. The petitioner had also produced repair receipts of August, 1981 with regard to Video and the music system as mentioned above. The Appellate Collector accepted the contention of the petitioner with regard to video. We are at loss to understand on what reasoning the music system has not been allowed the concession because both the music system and V.C.R. are mentioned in both the receipts of 10th april, 1981 and 19th August, 1981. If the Appellate Collector was satisfied with regard to V.C.R. it is sheer arbitrariness to hold that the same test was not satisfactory with regard to music system. The only reason why the appellate collector refused to accept the contention was because he thought that by looking at the articles the music system looked new. Frankly by looking at the maxi and music system and to say whether it had been used for 14 months or 18 months is to claim to have the eye of some mechanical computer. It will be seen that the repair receipt of 19th August, 1981 mentioned both video and music system to have been repaired. The Appellate Collector had accepted and given concession with regard to video which meant that he accepted the genuineness of the receipt of 19th August, 1981 as well the purchase receipt of 10th April, 1981 which includes both the video and music system. In that view there was no justification to make any exception by not giving the same concession to the music system also. The music system as well as the video stood on the same footing. On the very reasoning which prevailed with the Appellate Collector for giving concession in respect of video should have prevailed with regard to the music system. We are of the view that his decision is arbitrary and without any material on record.
5. With regard to the Kenwood Chef the petitioner has shown us (placed on record) a receipt of 4th May, 1981 about the purchase of the Kenwood Chef. No doubt was cast on such a receipt by any of the authorities. We can, thereforee, also see no reason why T.R. concession should not have been made available with respect to the same. We would in the circumstances quash the decision of the Central Government dated 25th September, 1982 and direct that the petitioner is entitled to the T.R. concession in respect of the music system and the Kenwood Chef with accessories also. The goods are obviously lying for quite some time and any delay in their release can only result these articles being becoming spoiled. We, thereforee, direct that these goods should be released to the petitioner immediately he applies for the same in accordance with the rules and law. The petition is thereforee allowed. No costs.