9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the operation of the Clause 3(d)(1)(i) of Notification No. 52/2003, dated 31-3-2003, the petitioner came under a liability. It is true that this notification was later amended on 25-5-2015 vide Notification No. 34/2015. It is also true that the notification reads as if it is a substitutive amendment. But then, when liability has already accrued, the same cannot be washed away or effaced by a subsequent notification, because, there is no clause in the Notification No. 34/2015, dated 25-5-2015 stating that it would cover even antecedent cases which failed to satisfy the conditions laid down in the Notification No. 52/2003, dated 31-3-2003. It is well-settled that even a retrospective amendment will not take away the vested rights of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by issuing a show cause notice dated 23-1-2018, the writ petitioner took the stand that the Notification No. 34 of 2015-Customs, dated 25-5-2015 had done away with the requirement of installing the capital goods within a period of one year. Instead the earlier notification was so amended as to provide for such goods being installed or otherwise used within the unit within the period of validity of the Letter of Permission (LOP). 5. The Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner states that this is a substitutive amendment and therefore retrospective. The stand of the petitioner was not accepted and the impugned order dated 25-6-2018 came to be passed against the writ petitioner. The same is assailed in this writ petition. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner ought to have satisfied the conditions laid down in the Notification No. 52 of 2003, dated 31-3-2003. As already pointed out, the said notification requires that in the case of capital goods they should have been installed or otherwise used within the unit within a period of one year from the date of import or procurement. Of course, the petitioner could have obtained extension of the time limit not exceeding 5 years. 10. In this case, the petitioner did not obtain such an extension. Therefore, on account of the operation of the Clause 3(d)(1)(i) of Notification No. 52/2003, dated 31-3-2003, the petitioner came under a liability. It is true that this notification was later amended on 25-5-2015 vide Notification No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
