9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners, was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows. 2.The appellant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and the company's factory is situated at Baroda where the company inter alia manufactures Phthalic Anhydride. For the manufacture of the said product, the company requires Ortho Oxylene and that is being imported from time to time. Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides for levy of additional duty equal to excise duty and the section provides that any article which is imported into India shall be liable to a duty equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on the like article if produced or manufactured in India. Sub-section (1) provides that the additional duty to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in year 1989, a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 262 (Bom.) (Ashok Traders v. Union of India) held that the advantage of exemption Notification No. 276/67 is not available without fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under the said Notification. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, the company gave up the claim that additional duty is not leviable by Reference to Notification No. 276/67. The company thereupon amended the Petition and by paragraph 14 claimed that the additional duty is not payable in view of Notification No. 89/82, dated March 25, 1982. The learned Single Judge held that the claim based on Notification No. 89/82 is not sustainable and dismissed the petition. The order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nics Export Processing Zone and includes any other free trade zone which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. The Notification No. 89/82, dated March 25, 1982 was issued after amendment of Section 3 providing differential rates of duty for goods manufactured within free trade zone and outside free trade zone. On behalf of the department, Shri Jagdish Chander, Assistant Collector of Customs filed return before the learned Single Judge and pointed with reference to illustrations that the rate of excise duty in respect of goods manufactured in free trade zone is higher than the duty payable for goods manufactured outside the free trade zone. The respondents contended that the exemption wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and to avoid this hardship, the Notification was published. The perusal of paragraphs 9 to 12 of the return sworn by Shri Jagdish Chander on November 11, 1989 makes the position extremely clear. In our judgment, the claim of Shri Mehta that the company was entitled to take advantage of Notification No. 89/82 is without any substance. 6.Shri Mehta made a faint attempt to urge that the company would be entitled to the advantage of Notification No. 15/83, dated February 11, 1983. We declined permission to the learned Counsel to raise such contention because neither in the petition nor before the learned Single Judge, there is a whisper of the claim arising out of Notification No. 15/83. It is not permissible for the appellants to raise fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
