9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In some of the cases an additional ground taken is that the duty should be charged which was applicable on the date when the goods entered the territorial waters of India and not the duty which may be applicable on the date of filing of bill of lading. Both the above points are now covered by the decisions of a Constitution Bench of this Court in M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. [1989 3 SCR 356 = 1989 (42) E.L.T. 344 (SC)] and Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.[1989 3 SCR 367 = 1989 (43) E.L.T. 189 (SC)]. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish M.J. Bhatusha's case by referring the following ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elling price of aluminium being lower than the import price, the corporation will be out of pocket by rupees 18 crores at the prices prevailing then even if no import duty is charged on the 75,000 tonnes of aluminium and it would be much higher if duty is charged on the same. The Corporation also pointed out that whereas the amount payable to the Corporation from the Aluminium Regulation Account to neutralise the loss would be about rupees 18 crores, the actual amount available in the said account for disbursement to the Corporation could be approximately rupees 4 crores only. Therefore, the Corporation requested the Union Government to consider the arrangements to be made to reimburse at least rupees 18 crores to the Corporation on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale price of the indigenous metal. This amount was realised as a part of the sale price of the indigenous metal and was required to be deposited in the Aluminium Regulation Account for payment to the Corporation with a view to compensate it for the loss suffered by it in selling the metal at a price below costs. 3. We are fully satisfied that the above action taken by the Central Government was done in the larger interest of the economy of the country and in public interest. As we are taking the view that the above explanation given by the respondents has been taken in larger public interest, the decision given in M.J. Bhatusha's case is fully applicable in these cases also. 4. In Bharat Surfactants's case it has been held that the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
