9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke to be imported by the company for manufacture of iron or steel on payment of basic customs duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem and to forthwith refund a sum of Rs. 4,59,80,394.00 together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum being differential duty-paid by the company as per the details in Annexure-G. 2. Petitioner is a steel company having its plant at Toranagallu. It has adopted COREX basic oxygen furnace, continuous casting process, hot strip mill route. It is stated that an integrated operation for iron making, steel making, slab making and HR coil was completed by them in the month of August, 1999. A pellet plant of capacity 3 MTPA was set up by the petitioners for manufacturing iron oxide pellets, which is an essential input for pig iron making in the COREX furnace. Petitioners have adopted a state-of-the-art technology for iron making, namely the COREX route, which is imported. Such a plant has been set up for the first time in India keeping in view the imports and benefits for production of pig iron. 3. The Department of Metallurgy, Institute of Science, Bangalore is supported by the University Grants Commission. It opines that the conventional blast fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. They say that the processes are different and hence the petitioners cannot seek parity as sought for in the case on hand. 7. Matter is heard for final disposal. 8. Sri Setalvad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners took me through the pleadings to contend that COREX process is similar to the blast furnace process. He referred to Annexures B and C in support of his contention. Learned Senior Counsel also says that the Government has issued a Notification to several steel industries expressing financial difficulties. He also states that subsequently for the current year benefits are made available to him. He relies on a catena of judgments in support of his contention. He would rely on AIR 1974 SC 1 (para-37) (State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Others), AIR 1979 SC 765 (State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana and Others) and AIR 1996 SC 1 (State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and Others). 9. Per contra, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel would say that a similar matter is seized by the Apex Court and therefore this court has to stay all the proceedings in the matter. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the light of territories within which the cause of action whole or in part arises for exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. Wordings used in Article 226(2) of the Constitution is same as the wording used in Section 9 CPC. The Supreme Court in (1994) 4 SCC, 711 [Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others] ruled that mere a registered office is at Calcutta cannot by itself provide for a jurisdiction to a litigation to be entertained in writ side. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court in para-6 ruled as under : Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit within embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words, the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation regarding receipt of imported goods. In the case on hand, the coke imported is being used in the plant situated in Karnataka. Such usage of coke is subject to payment of customs duty. Concessional customs duty, according to the petitioner, is denied by the petitioner in the case on hand. Therefore, the important aspect for getting the benefit is the usage of coke in Karnataka. Duty is referable to usage. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action at all as arising in the case on hand. A combined reading of the location, usage and the benefits would definitely show that a part of cause of action is certainly occurred in the State of Karnataka. The present facts of this case would show that this petition is filed in the light of integral part of the cause of action. The facts pleaded in this case are relevant to the dispute between the parties. Therefore, I deem it proper to overrule the objections of the respondents. 14. Petitioner claims in terms of Annexures-B and C that they are on par with the manufacture of pig iron or steel using blast furnace. They also rely on a subsequent notification issued in the current year providing concession of duty. Per c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
