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

1970 (1) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of several (solvent) oil extraction meals as well as wheat bran. Such compound animal feeds have distinct identity of their own and the commodity exported is known in the international market as "Indian compound feed". 4. The dispute in the present case is in respect of the period prior to coming into force of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The export tariff schedule during the period relevant to this writ petition, namely, 9-1-1969 to 2-8-1976 did not contain any entry with regard to duty on animal feed or compound animal feed. There were, however, three entries relating to oilcakes and meals being item 18 (groundnut cake), item 19 (deoiled groundnut meal) and item 21 (oil cakes other than groundnut and copra oil cakes). 5. The Governm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The petitioners were making their exports of such animal feed from Marmagoa. The Customs authorities during the year 1969-70 assessed the compound animal feeds at Nil duty of the basis of the declarations by the petitioners in their shipping documents pending a chemical test to be made of the goods by the Customs Authorities for the purposes of verifying the correctness of the said declarations. These assessments were made under section 17(4) after bonds and letters of guarantee were taken. These were subsequently returned when the Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the said feeds were not dutiable. This practice was altered with effect from 1st May, 1970. The petitioners were then required to produce test certificates regar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as rejected by order dated 5th July, 1978. By the said order it was accepted that the export tariff at the material time did not contain any entry conforming to the description of compound feed or animal feed. The first respondent, however, sought to apply the provisions of Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and came to the conclusion that the levy of duty was justified. It held that the compound feed, which was exported consisted of several articles and one of the articles, namely, groundnut meal was liable to duty at the rate of Rs. 125 per metric tonne. The first respondent also did not accept the other contentions of the petitioners. 7. The orders passed in revision are now being challenged befo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l' or 'components' the position may have been different. It appears to us that by using the expression 'set of articles' the legislature meant that the set of articles must retain their distinct individual identity. The expression 'set of articles' is not to be equated with or regarded as 'raw material' or 'components' of the goods. If different types of materials are mixed together and a new product results and if the identity of the materials so mixed is lost then the provisions of section 19 would not be applicable. Light is thrown on the interpretation of the section by referring to the proviso of the said section. The proviso contemplates duty being levied on the accessories of and spare parts of any article when duty is leviable on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... epresented to the exporters that, in law, no export duty is leviable on such animal feed the Government is clearly estopped from charging any such duty subsequently as the petitioners had acted to their detriment on the basis of such representation. 10. We are of the opinion that the principles of promissory estoppel are clearly applicable to the present case and the respondents cannot be permitted to levy and recover export duty on any portion of the animal feed exported by the petitioners. 11. Mr. Kataria has relied upon the decision reported as Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1968 Madras 289. The Madras High Court in that case was construing the provisions of section 21 of the Sea Customs Act. In our view the .....

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