2000 (6) TMI 37 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The delay in issuing notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act affecting the entitlement to concessional duty under the Export and Import policy of the Government of India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Delay in Notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act
The case involved the Union of India and officials appealing against a writ petition order. The Government of India issued an export and import policy allowing for concessional customs duty on capital goods under the EPCG Scheme. The petitioner imported goods under this policy, but later faced a show cause notice for short levy in Excise Duty due to a delay in a related notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, citing the principle of promissory estoppel and ruling that the delay in notification should not hinder the petitioner's benefit under the policy.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Concessional Duty
The appellants argued that without a concession notification under Section 25, the petitioner was not entitled to any concession. However, the Court found that the delay in issuing the notification should not prevent the petitioner from availing the concession as per the government's policy. The Court distinguished various judgments cited by the appellants, emphasizing that the delay in notification issuance did not negate the petitioner's entitlement to the concessional duty.

Separate Judgment Highlighted:
A separate judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court was referenced, emphasizing the doctrine of promissory estoppel as a principle of equity to prevent injustice. The judgment supported the view that if a promise is made by the government and acted upon by the promisee, the government is bound by the promise unless equity requires otherwise.

In conclusion, the Court rejected the appeal, stating that the delay in notification issuance should not impede the implementation of the Export and Import policy. The Court also questioned the Union of India's challenge to the order, as the policy was directed to be implemented by other state wings.