Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (9) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Customs authorities provisionally assessed the goods imported and subjected to them to a prescribed rate of duty of Rs. 300 per liter or 400% whichever is higher specified in respect of Sub-heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff for 1993-1994 and 1994-95. The Petitioner claims to have deposited the amount of duty provisionally assessed on the assessable value declared in the eight bills of entry. The Petitioner cleared the goods for home consumption during financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Between 1994 and 2001 the Petitioner addressed several letters interalia to the Central Board of Excise and Customs and to the Tariff Research Unit (TRU) of the Union Ministry of Finance. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the rate which has been p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctive rates of import duty on items which had then attracted a rate of duty higher than 85%, to 85% ad valorem, except on dried grapes, almonds, alcoholic beverages, ball and roller bearings and passenger baggage. The Budget Proposals for 1994-95 similarly contemplated a reduction in effective rates of customs duty on items which until then attracted a duty higher than 65%, to 65% except interalia on alcoholic beverages. Four submissions have been urged before the Court by the Petitioner at the hearing: (i) Compound alcoholic preparations are not alcoholic beverages and under the Budget Proposal the maximum rate of duty that was envisaged was 85% for financial year 1994-95; (ii) Not being alcoholic beverages, the goods imported by the Petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uty on import of goods, is derived from the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 read with notifications issued under section 25(1). If any changes in the rate were intended by Parliament it would have been reflected in the respective Finance Bills. The Respondents have denied that there was any error or discrepancy between the budget proposals announced by the Finance Minister and the Finance Bill.   5. Now in determining what is the appropriate rate of duty, the authoritative source of legislative intent is the Finance Act which is legislated upon by Parliament. The Finance Act of 1993 provided, insofar as is material, certain amendments in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. In Chapter 22 of the Customs Tariff it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review cannot go behind the law as enacted by Parliament. It is the law as enacted, which gives expression to legislative will and it is the law as enacted which prescribes the rate of tax which Parliament has duly imposed. Consequently, as a mater of first principle, it would be impermissible for the Court to undertake the exercise of entering upon a scrutiny of the correctness of the collective expression of legislative will which finds expression in the legislation as adopted by the Parliament. The Court cannot undertake a scrutiny of whether there was an error on the part of the Parliament in legislating to provide a particular rate of duty. It is to be noted that no challenge to the con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ounded; in that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with  the issue of discriminatory conduct towards the Petitioner as against other manufacturers of the same product, namely stainless steel strips. There, the Court held that since the authority did not cooperate in explaining, why a certain Ahmedabad Advanced Mills were being given the benefit of the exemption, while the same was not granted to the petitioners, they had engaged in discriminatory conduct without just cause. In the instant case, there is no such discriminatory conduct which would compel the interference of the Courts. In the matter of granting or not granting of an exemption, Government has been given significant discretion by the Supreme Court unless the provisions of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates