9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of 10 per cent because of an exemption granted to them in the public interest under the terms of Section 25(2) of the Customs Act. The writ petition was filed by the appellants on the ground that there was discrimination; the appellants were also entitled to the exemption granted to the 3rd respondents. The writ petition prayed for the grant of such exemption; and, in the alternative, that the exemption in favour of the 3rd respondents should be declared null and void. 3.It is not now in dispute that the case would stand covered by the judgment of this Court in M. Jhangir Bhatusha and Ors. v. Union of India & Others - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 344 (SC) = 1989 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 201, but for the appellant's argument that there were special or pecul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constitute a powerful organised sector in the edible oil market, and a high vanaspati price would encourage an unauthorised diversion of the edible oils to vanaspati manufacturing units, resulting in a scarcity in the edible oil market, giving rise to erratic prices and depriving consumers of access to edible oils. The need for preventing vanaspati prices ruling high was also to prevent people normally using vanaspati from (sic) switching over to other edible oils, thus leading to an imbalance in the oil market. An overall view made it necessary to ensure that domestic prices of vanaspati remained at reasonable levels. To all these considerations the learned Attorney General has drawn our attention, and we cannot say that they are not reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessary to make consummation of that policy effective by imposing a concessional levy on the imports. No such concession is called for in the case of the private importers who, in any event, are merely working out contracts entered into by them with foreign sellers before December 2, 1978." 5.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that special circumstances favoured the appellants in that the interim order passed by this Court on 23rd April, 1980, obliged the appellants to sell the caustic soda at a price that did not take duty at the rate of 92.5 per cent into account. 6.By the said interim order on the appellant's application for stay of recovery of the difference in duty, the appellants were permitted to clear the quantity of cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic soda at a price higher than Rs. 5132 per metric tonne and paid duty thereon at the rate of 92.5 per cent after applying to this Court to relieve them of their undertaking. The appellants acted upon the interim order knowing full well that if the appeal was decided against them they would be required to pay duty at the rate of 92.5 per cent. Acting upon the interim order created no equity in favour of the appellants, nor are these any special or peculiar circumstances. 9.In the second place, an undertaking given to Court is not an obligation imposed by the Court. It is a promise voluntarily made to the Court. Acting upon its own undertaking to court creates no equity in favour of the party giving it, nor is it a special or peculiar circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
