9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to non-extension of customs duty exemption notification. Analysis: The petitioner, a limited company manufacturing fluorescent tubes and electric bulbs, challenged the non-extension of a customs duty exemption notification. The notification in question exempted customs duty in excess of 10% ad valorem and was initially valid until 31st March, 1984. The petitioner had placed orders for importing glass shells before this deadline, with shipments scheduled to arrive before 31st March, 1984. However, due to a dock strike from 15th March, 1984 to 10th April, 1984, the shipments were delayed, arriving in Bombay after the strike ended. The petitioner filed bills of entry on 19th April, 1984, and the goods were cleared on 26th April, 1984. Before the dock strike, the petitioner and other manufacturers had requested the Government to extend the notification's validity, but no action was taken. Subsequently, a new notification was issued on 15th September, 1984, granting exemption until 30th September, 1984. This notification was specifically issued in response to the manufacturers' representation for exemption. However, since the petitioner had already cleared its goods, it could not benefit from this new notification. The Government, in response to the petitioner's request for extension, stated that it had no authority to grant exemptions with retrospective effect. The court noted that while the Government has discretion in granting exemptions, it could have utilized its power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to amend the existing notification instead of issuing a new one. Such an amendment would not be considered retrospective and could have provided the petitioner with the benefit of the exemption. The court held that the Government's decision not to extend the benefit due to a lack of authority for retrospective notifications was incorrect. The court quashed the decision dated 11th January, 1985, and issued a writ of mandamus to reconsider the petitioner's application in light of the judgment. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
