9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd vitally connected and interested in the affairs of the first petitioner. Under the Import Trade Control Policy, the Central Government has allowed associations of weavers to import man-made synthetic yarn from outside India on behalf of actual users, namely member weaving units of the first petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioners claim to have been importing synthetic yarn and man-made continuous filament yarn from outside India after following customs procedures and on payment of duty leviable thereon. The petitioners claim to have also been granted a licence for a private bonded warehouse at Surat under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the Customs Act' for brief). They deposit their imported yarn without payment of duty therein and clear piecemeal consignments for consumption as and when required on payment of duty in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Customs Act. On 3rd October 1978, the President of India promulgated one Ordinance bearing the title of "The Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Ordinance, 1978" ('the Ordinance' for brief) to provide for the levy and collection of additional duties of excise on certain textiles and tex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India reported in AIR 1985 SC at p. 1211 = 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (SC). Such levy has been held to be additional customs duty and the collection thereof from the petitioners in that case was found to be in accordance with law. 4.The aforesaid Division Bench ruling of this Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 848 and 849 of 1981 decided on 3rd May 1991 is binding to us. We are in respectful agreement therewith in toto. It is on all fours applicable in the present case. The levy and collection of the additional duty imposed by the AD Excise Act in this case will have to be held just and proper and in accordance with law. Any challenge thereto will have to be turned down. 5. Shri Nanavati for the petitioners has however submitted that the principle of law enunciated in the aforesaid ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 848 and 849 of 1981 decided on 3rd May 1991 requires reconsideration by this Court in view of the Full Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Apar Private Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. at page 644 and a recent Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Centu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in its aforesaid ruling in the case of Apar Private Ltd. (supra). We think that Section 15 of the Customs Act would govern both the situations, namely, the situation of upwards revising the rate of duty after the goods are imported but before their clearance and also the situation of new impost of duty after the goods are imported but before their clearance. Even when there is an upward revision in the rate of duty, the effect is some additional impost of duty. For example, if the duty at the time of import of the concerned goods was 'X' and at the time of clearance thereof from the bonded warehouse was 'X +1' on account of its upward revision during the intervening period, it cannot be gainsaid that there would be additional impost of '+1' in the duty chargeable on the concerned goods. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in its ruling in the case of Apar Private Ltd. (supra) has accepted the position that, in view of Section 15 of the Customs Act, the imported goods would be chargeable to the higher rate of duty at the time of clearance thereof from the bonded warehouse on account of its upward revision during their deposit therein after their import. If that be the position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture. The exemption came to be withdrawn at the time of their removal. The action of recovery of duty at the time of removal of those goods was challenged. In that context, it has been held :- "It is well settled by the scheme of Central Excises and Salt Act and clarified by several decisions that even though the taxable event is manufacture or production of excisable article, the duty can be levied and collected at a later stage for administrative convenience. The scheme of the Excise Act read with relevant rules particularly Excise Rule 9A reveals that the taxable event is the manufacture and the payment of duty is related to the date of removal of such article from the factory. Therefore, when the goods were unconditionally exempted from duty on the date of manufacture but were dutiable on the date of their removal they would be liable to duty because on the basis of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Excise Authorities are within competence to apply the rates prevalent on the date of removal." By analogy, if this principle is applied to customs duty, withdrawal of exemption from customs duty enjoyed by the imported goods at the time of import before their clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the Bombay High Court in the case of Apar Private Ltd. (supra), which has only a persuasive, and not binding, value 10. In view of our aforesaid discussion, it would not be necessary for us to dilate upon the Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. (supra). With respect, we are disinclined to agree with the view taken therein for the very same reasons which we have given for not agreeing with the view taken by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in its ruling in the case of Apar Private Limited (supra). Besides, with respect, we may observe that the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. (supra) has not taken into consideration the effect of Section 15 of the Customs Act as also the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). Again, it can be said to be running counter to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). 11. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby rejected with no order as to costs on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
