9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to questions of rate of duty as applicable on the date of import effected by the applicants, it was pointed out to Dr. Gauri Shankar, at the outset, that the Bench considered that an application for reference to High Court does not lie in terms of Section 130 of the Act inasmuch as there was a specific exclusion in respect to orders having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. It was further pointed out to the learned Counsel that the Tribunal in a series of decisions, has already taken a view regarding non-maintainability of reference application in such matters, and it was put to him whether he would still like to press the application. Dr. Gauri Shankar, in reply, admitted awareness of earlier decisions of this Bench, as well as other Benches of the Tribunal, particularly the one entitled: M/s. Union Carbide India Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, being Misc. Order No. 29/84-D, dated 8-2-1984 = 1984 (16) E.L.T. 525 (Tribunal) , but nevertheless, indicated that he would like to put forth arguments in an endeavour to show that the view so far held was not correct. He accordingly addressed arguments on the point of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere three stages in the charge of Customs duty; the first being the levy thereof, the second of assessment and the third and final prescribing the mode or method of collection and recovery of the amount assessed; and contended that the present was a case not relating to rate of duty but only that of collection thereof and as such it would be erroneous to hold that the question involved was that of rate of duty. 6. Shri K. Chandramouli, in his reply, primarily, placed reliance on the. earlier decisions of the Tribunal, stating that intention of the legislature was clear to the effect that in all matters relating to rate of duty, appeal lay to the Supreme Court under the provisions of Section 130E(b) of the Act, and that in this case, the whole question was as to what rate of duty ought to be charged on the goods imported, and thus it was basically a matter having relation to rate of duty and consequently reference to High Court was precluded and that the party s only remedy was by way of appeal to the Supreme Court. 7. In reply to Dr. Gauri Shankar s arguments that the Act dealt with Customs duty in one aspect or the other and in that view of the matter, no reference could lie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial waters or is postponed till the Bill of Entry is presented under Section 15 of the said Act. (b) Whether Section 12 should be subordinated to the provisions of Section 15 of the said Act. (c) Whether Section 15 which lays down the procedure for determination of duty can be construed as part of the charging section as the learned Appellate Tribunal has held. (d) Whether learned Appellate Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the duty assessed before entry inwards of a vessel is only an advance assessment or tentative. .................. (e) Whether having made the representations and/or promise made and contained in the said two notifications, dated January 5, 1979 on the basis whereof the petitioner acted to its detriment and changed its position, it is within the powers of the Central Government to withdraw and/or curtail the exemption granted under the said two notifications, dated January 5, 1979 before the expiry of the same. Is the Central Government bound by the promises and/or representation contained in the said two notifications, dated January 5, 1979. (f) Whether, assuming though not admitting that the said purported notification, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction, that the power of the Tribunal to make a reference and the right of the litigant to require it, must be sought within the four corners of Section 66(1), that the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear reference is limited to questions which are properly referred to it under Section 66(1), and that such jurisdiction is purely advisory ..........; 13. We also cannot help observing that whole scheme of the Act, leads to an inescapable inference that the intention of the Legislature was throughout to give a special treatment to cases involving rate of duty, and value of goods for purposes of assessment. This intention can be clearly discerned from the very first provision as to constitution of Benches, as contained in Section 129C of the Act which provides that questions having a relation to the rate of duty of Customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment (emphasis supplied), shall be heared by Special Benches comprised by three Members, having all India jurisdiction. Then an appeal to Supreme Court has been provided specifically and directly as of right, (and not by way of leave or permission), by Section 130E(b) of the Act, and it is in this context th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
