9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discrimination claim based on rescinded notification. 2. Interpretation of Section 25 of the Customs Act regarding exemption from duty. Analysis: 1. The writ petitioner, a pharmaceutical company manufacturing a drug for Tuberculosis (TB) treatment, claimed discrimination due to a rescinded notification. The company argued that the rescinded notification led to discrimination, but failed to provide supporting evidence from a comparative standpoint. Consequently, the court held that the discrimination claim was not substantiated. 2. The second issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 25 of the Customs Act, which grants power to exempt goods from customs duty in the public interest. The company contended that the second notification did not serve public interest, citing a Supreme Court case emphasizing public interest in exempting duty on essential goods. The company sought total exemption from customs duty for a specific drug component. However, the court found the company's argument overstated, as the referenced case pertained to newsprint taxation and did not directly apply to the Customs Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no case was established for court intervention. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the company's arguments did not meet the threshold for interference under the Customs Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and relevance in legal arguments, ultimately leading to the rejection of the discrimination claim and the petition.
|
