1993 (10) TMI 92 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 160/84 regarding concessional rate of duty for importing cars for handicapped persons.
2. Consideration of petitioner's request for adhoc exemption under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 160/84
The petitioner, a physically handicapped person, sought to import a specially designed car under Notification No. 160/84, allowing a concessional rate of duty for handicapped individuals. The car, ordered before the notification's expiry, faced delays in transport due to unforeseen circumstances. The Customs Department, upon arrival of the car after the notification's expiry, denied the concessional rate, citing the expired notification and the necessity of an import license. The petitioner argued that since the car was ordered and shipped before the notification's expiry, he should be entitled to the concessional rate. The court did not delve into this contention but left it open for future consideration.

Issue 2: Consideration of adhoc exemption under Section 25(2)
The petitioner's request for adhoc exemption under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act was rejected by the authorities without proper consideration. The court noted that the rejection orders did not address the petitioner's request in light of Section 25(2). The authorities merely cited the expired notification and a change in policy regarding exemptions for handicapped individuals. The court emphasized that the authorities failed to assess whether exceptional circumstances warranted an exemption under Section 25(2). As a result, the court quashed the rejection orders and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's request for adhoc exemption. The court granted the petitioner the opportunity to submit additional representations within eight weeks, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing and consideration of exceptional circumstances by the authorities. The court also instructed the continuation of the bank guarantee until a final decision is made.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petitions, highlighting the errors in the rejection orders and the necessity for proper consideration of the petitioner's request for adhoc exemption under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act.