L00021
AGGREGATES LEVY — aggregate sold and removed from originating site prior to commencement date but repurchased and returned there prior to that date — whether liable to levy where not chargeable under original legislation but only following retrospective change excepting only aggregate on site other than originating site — appeal dismissed.
AGGREGATES LEVY — underdeclaration penalty — imposed against background of retrospective change in legislation and incorrect information in Customs Notice — reasonable excuse — appeal allowed.
AGGREGATES LEVY — exception for aggregate removed in course of dredging undertaken for restoring, improving or restoring watercourse — whether extension to waterbody created by dredging constitutes watercourse — appeal dismissed
MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE
HUMBERSIDE AGGREGATES AND EXCAVATIONS LTD Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents
Tribunal: David Demack (Chairman)
Gillian Pratt
Sitting in public in York on 22 October 2004
Michael Juggins for the Appellant
James Puzey of counsel instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004
(1) a decision on review of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise given on 18 December 2003 confirming an assessment to aggregates levy of £66,241, plus a civil penalty of £3,321.05 for underdeclaration of levy, for the period 1 April 2002 to 30 June 2002; and
(2) a decision on review of the Commissioners also given on 18 December 2003, confirming an assessment to aggregates levy of £56,232, for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 March 2003.
The First Appeal
The Second Appeal
"For the purposes of this Part aggregate is exempt under this section if-
(c) it consists wholly of aggregate won-
(i) by being removed from the bed of any … watercourse (whether natural or artificial) …; and
(ii) in the course of the carrying out of any dredging undertaken exclusively for the purpose of…restoring, improving or maintaining that …watercourse."
"a body of water that must demonstrate a:
* natural source of surface or underground water;
* flow under the action of gravity;
* reasonably well-defined channel of bed and banks; and
* confluence with another watercourse or tidal waters."
"For the purposes of the levy, my understanding is that to qualify as a watercourse, the water must flow from the start through a well defined channel to a confluence with another watercourse.
In answer to the question of whether we have a watercourse, I do not believe this to be the case for the following reasons:
- drainage from the second pond is through a pipe running under the road. I do not think that this qualifies as a "channel". My understanding is that a channel would mean either an existing natural flowing channel or an artificial channel created to divert a naturally flowing stream (such as a man made culvert used to divert water under roads etc)
- there is no channel of water into the new pond, water either enters the pond as ground water or by excess surface water
- the water moves from this pond into another pond. This is not a confluence with another watercourse."
David Demack
Chairman
Release Date: 9 December 2004
MAN/04/9500
MAN/04/9501