9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition the petitioners had also asked for a declaration that the said exemption notification dated 18th of April 1980 should be continued to remain in force upto 30th of September 1980. This is on the footing that the petitioners had already placed orders for import of aluminium goods on the strength of such exemption notification and by the time the goods were imported the exemption had elapsed. The petitioners have asked for such a declaration mainly on the ground of promissory estoppel. Mr. Ganesh has rightly stated that it is not possible for him to seek such a relief and, therefore, he did not press for the relief as contained in prayer (a) of the petition. 2. Therefore the only other question is as to whether there is any hostile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strange. The notification is not challenged on the ground that the same is not issued in public interest. Therefore it is for the Government to decide as to what goods are to be exempted, when and to what extent. I can also understand if the plea of discrimination was between the MMTC and the petitioners as such, but that is not the case here. Even otherwise, I do not think this plea of discrimination can ever stand scrutiny if one has regard for the exact wording of the notification. The relevant portion of the notification is as follows :- "I am directed to say that in the light of the shortage of aluminium in the country, 30639 tonnes of aluminium ingots/wire rods is being imported by the Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation, India ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oration was given the said exemption. The Government had also taken note of the fact that the profit margin of the petitioners in those matters on the sale of imported goods in India was higher than the profit margin of the STC and therefore it was felt that with a view to bring the prices down it was necessary to import certain commodities at an international price which was much lower than the price in the Indian market and therefore the Government exempted payment of duty. This was upheld by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. 5. In my view, the present case is not different from the case decided by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Here also the Government had taken into account the shortage of aluminium in the count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
