9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Company of India Ltd.", and for convenience is referred to hereafter as "the Company". Since 1964 the Company manufactured agricultural tractors, (declared to be an essential commodity by Government of India, which from time to time fixed the selling price inclusive of manufacturer's profits), for which purpose the Company imported inter alia hydraulic lifts and 3-point linkages. Between December 1964 and July 1968 the Company imported 55 consignments comprising inter alia of hydraulic lifts and 3-point linkages. On the first two consignments of hydraulic lifts which arrived in Bombay in December 1964, the Company filed the requisite Bills of Entry claiming benefit of the exemption under the 1960 Notification. Exemption was declined by the Department on the ground that hydraulic lifts were not parts of agricultural tractors. The Company paid the duty demanded under protest. The Company thereafter sent an undated note to the Department explaining why hydraulic lifts and 3-point linkages should be regarded as components of agricultural tractors attracting exemption under the 1960 Notification. The Company also furnished a statement giving details of an aggregate amount of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting aside the orders dated 27th March 1980 and 21st August 1980 and for refund of ₹ 12,17,537.17 with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 5th April 1973. 7. The impugned orders are challenged by Mr. Chagla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Company, on four grounds, namely, (1) on certain conditions being satisfied, both the 1960 and 1963 Notifications exempted hydraulic lifts and 3-point linkages from duty, with the result that assessment and recovery of duty on these goods were illegal and without authority of law; (2) the clearances effected by the Company between 1964 and 1968 enjoyed the benefit of the exemption given by the 1960 Notification or in any event of the exemption given by the 1963 Notification, with the result that looked at either way, the Company was entitled to the refund of duty recovered without authority of law; (3) the note submitted by the Company to the Department was and must be deemed to be a general protest in respect of all consignments, which exonerated the Company from having to lodge a specific protest in respect of each consignment and (4) in respect of certain Bills of Entry admittedly destroyed by the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er with the Customs authorities and claim refund of the customs duty paid by you on the c.k.d. components..." In these circumstances, Mr. Chagla is right when he says that even assuming for the sake of argument, that the Company's case does not fall within the exemption Notification of 1960, it squarely falls within the exemption Notification of 1963. The result is that the duty recovered by the Department from the Company is without authority of law. 9. But then Mr. Pochkhanawalla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, says that the Company is barred from claiming exemption under the 1963 Notification because it did so for the first time in 1973 when the earlier writ petition was filed. This contention suffers from an inherent fallacy. Surely there can be no limitation for raising a contention. In the instant case the stand of the Department was that the Company was not entitled to the benefit of the 1960 Notification for certain reasons, to which the retort of the Company in the earlier petition was, and in the present petition is, that if such be the Department's stand, the Company is in any event entitled to the benefit of the 1963 Notification. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anawalla next urged that under the Public Notice dated 30th May 1968 issued by the Collector, exemption would be attracted only if component parts were imported with the tractors and as the company did not import the lifts and 3-point linkages with the tractors, it would not be entitled to the benefit of the exemption. Apart from the fact that this too is a contention now assailed for the first time in arguments across the Bar, it is a total misreading of the Public Notice which brings to the forefront that it is only if the component parts are imported as spares that duty would be attracted. It has never been the Department's case that the company imported the component parts, viz. hydraulic lifts and 3-point linkages as spares. The association of the component parts with tractors in the Public Notice, is on its plain reading intended to make a distinction from the components being imported as spares and hence assessable to duty. Assuming Mr. Pochkhanawalla is correct in his submission, what is important is that the Public Notice issued b they Collector cannot override or add conditions not stated in the 1963 Notification issued by Government of India and which unlike the Public N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
