9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hair oil being not specifically excluded under the general heading "toiletries" and "perfumes", the petitioner claimed benefit of the scheme for the period from 1st April, 1978 to 31st March, 1979 and has also in fact received benefit under the scheme. Government continued the scheme for the year 1979-80 also and decided to revise the rates of the scheme. Vide annexure "A(1)", the petitioner has produced a copy of the letter written by the Export Commissioner along with annexures. Entry No. 6 of the annexure to the letter provides for benefit of the scheme on "cosmetics and toiletries, not specified elsewhere (excluding lipstick and shampoo) at the revised rate of 12.5 per cent" for the next three years, i.e., 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. Similarly, entry No. 19 provides for the benefit of the scheme on agarbatties (incense sticks) at 10 per cent. As averred in the petition, the petitioner was also granted benefit of the scheme accordingly. It appears that the Government of India, by letter No. 12(36)/79-EAC dated 1st April, 1980, continued the said scheme. Entry No. 6 provides for 12.5 per cent cash support on cosmetics and toiletries not specified elsewhere and entry No. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Circular No. 12(43)/82-EAC dated 31st March, 1984, but hair oil was not included in the said list. The petitioner's grievance is that as indicated in Exh. B/1-2, on different dates, applications were forwarded for the benefit of the scheme but the benefit is not extended to the petitioner. At Exh. B/1-2, the petitioner has produced lists showing file numbers allotted by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Ahmedabad, date of export, net value of perfumed hair oil after deducting commission if any, and the amount of cash assistance receivable as per the application. The petitioner has also made a grievance that though in entry No. 6 of notification dated 31st March, 1984 it has been specifically stated that the rates of cash compensatory scheme will be applicable to exports effected on or after 1st April, 1984 till 31st March, 1985, the petitioner's applications are not allowed by the respondents. The petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 16 that the petitioner was informed in March, 1988 by the 3rd respondent that it should approach the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was informed thereafter that the 2nd respondent has rejected its claim and the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restricted its claim to 31st March, 1984, the date on which Exh. A/4 (circular) was published specifically indicating the items covered at entry No. 6, "cosmetics and toiletries" wherein hair oil is not included. It is only on 31st March, 1984 that a circular was published wherein hair oil was not incorporated in the list of cosmetics and toiletries. There was no separate exclusion of hair oil in the entry of cosmetics and toiletries in the previous lists, and in fact, even the petitioner was given the benefit for export of hair oil till 23rd April, 1981. The questions therefore are, whether hair oil is to be included in "cosmetics and toiletries" and whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the scheme from 23rd April, 1981 to 31st March, 1984. In this context, it is required to be noted that the list was published for the first time only on 31st March, 1984 wherein hair oil is not included. 5.. On behalf of the petitioner, it is canvassed that hair oil is included in cosmetics and toiletries and for this purpose, reliance is placed on various judgments. 6.. Tata Oil Mills which manufactures perfumed hair oils and shampoo forwarded an application claiming benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiveness of the person. Thus, without multiplying definitions, it can be safely concluded that cosmetics would cover and include perfumed hair oils, which, as we all know, help beautify the hair and assist its grooming for better appearance." 7.. Learned advocate has also placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Prakash Trading Co. reported in [1972] 30 STC 348. The court considered the dictionary meaning of the word "cosmetic", etc., and held as under: "..........Reference in this connection was made to the dictionary meaning of the words 'cosmetic', 'toilet' and 'toiletry'. 'Cosmetic', according to Webster's International Dictionary, is 'a preparation to beautify or alter appearance of the body or for cleansing, colouring, conditioning or protecting skin, hair, nails, eyes or teeth'. The same dictionary gives the meaning of the expression 'toilet' as 'an act or process of dressing, especially formerly of dressing hair and now usually cleansing and grooming of one's person'. 'Toiletry', according to the dictionary, is 'an article or preparation used in making one's toilet such as soap, lotion, cosmetic, tooth-paste, shaving cream, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the instant case, the petitioner's applications were not disposed of and were kept pending inspite of the fact that the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court [Tata Oil Mills Company Limited v. Union of India (W.P. No. 1117 of 1980 decided on 13th July, 1984)] was pointed out to the authorities. Yet, the authorities sat tight over it. Not only that, Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Ahmedabad, wrote a letter to the petitioner on 21st May, 1987 pointing out that the decision given by the Bombay High Court [Tata Oil Mills Company Limited v. Union of India (W.P. No. 1117 of 1980 decided on 13th July, 1984)] would apply only to Tata Oil Mills and not to the petitioner. It is further stated in that letter that if the petitioner feels that the rule in this judgment [Tata Oil Mills Company Limited v. Union of India (W.P. No. 1117 of 1980 decided on 13th July, 1984)] should be made applicable to similar cases including that of the petitioner, it should take up the matter with the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Delhi, for a decision. Accordingly, the petitioner did approach. Under the circumstances, we feel that it is a fit case where interest should be awarded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
