9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for the period from December 30, 1986 to September 10, 1987 reducing the extent of exemption. The notification issued earlier on September 10, 1982 and modified in 1983 shall be effective till September 10, 1987. The appellants should be subject to duty only in accordance with those notifications issued under the Customs Act. Appeal allowed. - 7202 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2000 - S. Rajendra Babu and R.C. Lahoti, JJ. [Judgment per: Rajendra Babu, J.]. - By Notification No. 210/82, dated September 10, 1982 (as amended by Public Notice dated September 20, 1983 ) issued under Section 25(i) of the Customs Act the Government of India exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty of customs on all raw materials and components imported for the manufacture of goods to be supplied to various organisations such as I.D.A. that is, the International Development Association, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (I.B.R.D.) or bilateral or multilateral sided projects. The said notification stated that it would be in force till September 10, 1987. By Notification No. 513/86, dated December 30, 1986 issued under Section 25(i) of the Customs Act the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new events nor any supervening circumstances which could form a basis for or justify the withdrawal of the benefit contained in the exemption Notification No. 210/82 as amended in 1983 after being satisfied that public interest required that there should be no duty of customs nor additional duty of customs in respect of raw materials and components imported for supplies there from to O.N.G.C. for a fixed and definite period up to September 10, 1987; that the policy of the first respondent is to indigenise production as is the policy of O.N.G.C. to indigenise; that the appellant had secured orders for supply of goods against global tenders where foreign suppliers also participated and in the teeth of international competition the company had been awarded the contracts by O.N.G.C.; that pursuant to the exemption that has been granted the company had invested since 1983 a large amount of money in respect of its plant for manufacture of goods to be supplied to O.N.G.C.; that public interest which prompted the first respondent to issue the exemption Notification No. 210/82 remains unaltered and no new supervening circumstances have justified reversal of the said policy and, in fact, su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating as follows: - It is wrong to say that the appellant herein could have misused the exemption because under the export obligation clause, in keeping with the policy of the government, the appellant was obliged only to import for supplying to ONGC, respondent No. 4 herein. The licence issued under the policy issued under the policy issued under the policy clearly reflects the export obligation imposed on the appellant herein. Furthermore, the finished product Daitrolite manufactured from the raw materials imported under the licence, being a highly specialised product could have been sold only to ONGC, Oil India etc. and nobody else. At the time in 1982 when the exemption on customs duty was allowed to the appellant, the prevailing basic customs duty was 60% and 70% on different materials and even if on account of probable misuse, the exemption why only a 25% customs duty was allowed to be imposed for bringing in the raw materials." 7.The law on the matter is now well settled that even in respect of exemptions that may have been made by the Government the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not be applicable if the change in the stand of the Government is made on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It is clear, therefore, that the factors taken into consideration by the Government appear to us to be wholly irrelevant and do not subserve public interest. In somewhat identical situation, this Court had occasion to examine the scope of interference in respect of notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. 9.In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Union of India Ors. Etc. Etc. - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1985 (2) SCR 237, scope of interference in the notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 is considered. This Court held that power to grant exemption under Section 25 of the Customs Act is a legislative power and a notification issued by the Government thereunder amounts to a piece of subordinate legislation, even then the notification is liable to be questioned on the ground that it is an unreasonable one inasmuch as a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of grounds on which plenary legislation can be challenged: (i) that it does not conform to the statute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Charge Chrome, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.). In this case, however the law stated in Kasinka Trading Anr.(supra) is reiterated but there is no plea in the petition that the formation of opinion as to public interest is based on no material or was vitiated by mala fides. In the present case, the position is altogether different. Specific plea has been raised that there is no basis for formation of the opinion as to public interest calling for withdrawal or modification of the exemption already granted. Therefore, the principle stated in that case has no application to the facts of the present case. 11.Relying upon a decision in Collector of Central Excise v. R.M.D.C. Press Pvt. Ltd. - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 29 (S.C.), it was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that public interest should be presumed to exist even when the judgment under appeal does not expressly refer to public interest which moved the respondents to curtail the period of exemption. When a specific contention had been raised regarding non-existence of public interest in curtailing the period of exemption, we fail to understand as to how this decision can be of any assistance to the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
