Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1996 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (8) TMI 112 - SC - CustomsWhether the appellants were also entitled to the exemption granted to the 3rd respondents [The State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India Ltd.]? Held that:- In the first place, the interim order was passed upon the application for stay of recovery of the difference in duty made by the appellants. If the appellants found the conditions imposed by the order unacceptable, they could have sold the caustic soda at a price higher than ₹ 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. 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 circumstance. In the third place, the passage from the decision in Jhangir Bhatusha's case [1989 (5) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] does not assist the appellants. In the fourth place, should a court come to the conclusion that an exemption is arbitrary or discriminatory or violative of Article 14, it may strike the exemption down but it cannot widen its scope so as to cover those it finds have been discriminated against. Appeal dismissed.
|