9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered into contracts with manufacturers of mini colour lab in Japan for import of sets of N. QSS. 603 with accessories and spare parts and opened irrevocable letters of credit for the price in Japanese Currency Yen. All this was complete much before 3rd April, 1986. Indeed the sets even left Japan shore before that date. The sets, however actually reached India subsequent to that date. The significance of the date 3rd April, 1986 is that the Project Import Regulations, 1986 made under Section 157 of the Customs Act (the Act were brought in force with effect from that date by Notification No. 230 of 1986 in supersession of the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 made under Section 157 read with proviso to the entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 98 says that the expression used in Heading No. 98.01 shall have the meaning assigned to them by the 1986 regulations. It may be mentioned that the expression "Industrial Plant" is not defined either under the Customs Act or the Customs Tariff Act which together form a near composite scheme. 4. Upon coming into force of the 1986 regulations the Customs Authorities refused to treat the photographic equipments imported thereafter as "Industrial Plant" falling under Heading No. 98.01 and sought to levy duty thereon under Heading No. 90.10. These actions/orders of the Customs Authorities and also the validity of the 1986 regulations were challenged in this Court by several importers on several grounds. One ground was that the 1986 regulatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the correctness of the view that the regulations were a statute taken in Subhash Photographics and Lazor Colour Prints (supra) and referred the question reproduced in the opening part of the judgment to a larger bench by an order, dated 5th November, 1992 Popular Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 544. 6. Two grounds are common before us. One is that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not operate against a statute and the other is that the rules framed under Section 156 of the Customs Act are statute. Our task has become easy in view of the following pronouncements of Supreme Court in appeal in the case of Subhash Photographics (supra). "The Parliament has appointed two authorities i.e. Central Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailure to comply with them. No doubt, the maximum outer limit of the penalty under the rule is Rs. 500/- and in the case of Regulations it is Rs. 200/-, but that is besides the point. Under Articles 20 of our Constitution, no one can be punished without authority of law. All these factors are clear indications that the regulations have a status of statute. It is not and cannot be the case of anyone that the subordinate legislation is not a statute. 7. As observed by the Supreme Court, character of the rules as well as regulations both is not different both being delegated legislation and hence if rule is a statute regulation is also a statute. Their purpose and ambit are no doubt different since they operate within the specified areas. Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter all it is not a condition precedent for making them effective. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the word "statute" is not defined anywhere, not even under the General Clauses Act and hence its common and dictionary meaning will have to be resorted to. Contention is correct. To put it shortly, statute means the will of the legislature. But this does not mean the will can be expressed only through the substantive act and not through a subordinate legislation. 9. It was submitted that the regulations are "instruments" and not the statute and there is a well recognised distinction between the statute and the instrument. In this context, our attention was drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d circumstances of the case and the nature of the policy decision. 12. In our view therefore the view taken by the division bench in Lazor Colour Prints Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has correctly laid down the law that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot apply to the regulations in question. We may mention that to the same effect is the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Suresh Colour Labs. v. Union of India -1993 (64) E.L.T. 399. Even on merits, it is pertinent to notice that the 1963 regulations were not for a stated period and hence it is not a case of premature withdrawal or supersession of those rules. 13. To conclude, we hold that the regulations are statute and doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be evoked against them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
