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

1992 (11) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er alia dealing in photographic and other processes. There does not seem to be any dispute that the customs duty for such goods imported into India is chargeable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Prior to 28th February, 1986 the customs duty was charged as per the rates mentioned against the appropriate items mentioned in the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.T.A.'). It is averred by the petitioners that Tariff Item No. 84 as it stood prior to 28th February, 1986, dealt with the items under heading 'Boilers, Machinery, Mechanical Appliances, parts thereof. Under the said heading sub-item No. 84.66 dealt with all items of machinery popularly known as 'Project Imports'. The Central Boar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... toms Act and the tariff entry No. 84.66, entered into a contract with M/s. Noritsu Koki Company Ltd., Japan to import one complete set of N. QSS. 603 with accessories and spare-parts on 30th November, 1985 for the price of Japanese Yen 10,567,990/-. The petitioners also opened an irrevocable letter of credit dated 29th January 1986 through their bankers viz. Bank of Baroda for the said amount. As per the contract, the delivery of the said labs was to be effected on or before 31st March, 1986. Exh. 'D' to the petition is the copy of the said proforma invoice and Exh. 'E' is the copy of the said L/C confirmation. The petitioners further claimed that they are also a registered S.S.I, unit vide certificate No. 86060, dated 9th April, 1986 issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntained in the regulations of 1965 and the concessional rate of duty provided under tariff entry No. 84.66 of Central Tariff Act they sought to import the goods in question from Japan and by reason of change brought about by 1986 regulations defining the 'Industrial Plant', the petitioners have been deprived of the concessional rate of duty available under the new tariff entry No. 84.66. The petitioners therefore prayed that they are entitled for substantive reliefs as prayed in the petition. 7. Shri Anil Kumar, the Assistant Collector of Customs filed the return on behalf of respondents and pleaded that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It is further stated that the change brought about by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ossible after effects. The drying up process or swelling in the flow or a change of course, are all to be expected, anticipated and guarded against. There is no scope for importing notions of great expectations as against the legislative exercises. The plea of promissory estoppel has to fail in the above circumstances." The learned Division Bench in support of this conclusion in paragraph 5 of the judgment relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [AIR 1992 Bombay 233]. The Division Bench held that the regulations framed under Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 are statute and consequently, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be evoked against the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6 it does not appear that the Division Bench has had any occasion to consider Sections 156 and 159 in contrast with Section 157 of the Customs Act. Learned Counsel for the parties drew cur attention to various decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue of doctrine or promissory estoppel and the binding nature of regulations framed under Section 157 of the Act. We do not wish to express any opinion on these decisions because prima facie we are of the opinion that the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1334 of 1986 relating to doctrine of promissory estoppel needs reconsideration. We accordingly formulate the following point for consideration by a larger bench :- "Whether regulations framed under Section 157 of the Customs .....

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