|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 273 Records
-
1990 (2) TMI 76
The revision application by M/s. India Steamship Co. challenged a penalty imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 19,907.00 from Rs. 25,320/- due to valuation issues and evidence of goods being damaged on high seas. The penalty amount was deemed sufficient for justice.
-
1990 (2) TMI 75
The High Court of Judicature at Madras heard a case involving the mis-declaration of a car's horsepower for customs duty purposes. The petitioner argued there was no mis-declaration and had already paid the duty. The court decided not to implement the order demanding additional duty but required the petitioner to provide certain undertakings and bonds before releasing the vehicle. The writ petition was ordered accordingly, with no costs. (Citation: 1990 (2) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS)
-
1990 (2) TMI 74
Issues:
1. Export of Intensive Care Respirator System with accessories.
2. Interpretation of Exports (Control) Order.
3. Restrictions on export under Customs Notification No. 208.
4. Bill of Entry for home consumption and its implications.
5. Constitutional guarantee under Article 19 for trading by way of export.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported Intensive Care Respirator System with accessories and intended to export it to Moscow for a net foreign exchange earning. Customs authorities refused to endorse the shipping bill for export, citing that the export of the item is not permitted under the law. The petitioner sought a mandamus to permit the export of the goods.
2. The petitioner argued that under the Exports (Control) Order, the subject goods could be freely exported to any country. The respondents contended that the export was not permitted based on a clarification received from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports. However, the Court noted that the item was not prohibited under any law from being exported, as it was not included in Schedule I of the Exports (Control) Order.
3. The Customs Notification No. 208 allowed duty-free import of the item, but there was no explicit restriction on exporting the goods. The Court held that availing the benefit of exemption from customs duty did not prohibit the petitioner from exporting the item, unless expressly prohibited by law.
4. The Bill of Entry for home consumption was cleared for the imported item, but the Court clarified that the description was not a restriction on how the consignment should be used. The Bill of Entry categories did not impose any specific restrictions on the utilization or export of the imported goods.
5. The judgment emphasized the constitutional guarantee under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, protecting trading through export unless prohibited by law. The Court highlighted that the Exports (Control) Order aimed to regulate exports without affecting the country's economy, and since the item was not prohibited for export, the petitioner was entitled to relief. The writ petition was allowed with no costs imposed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 72
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the procedure for making an application for refund of excise duty.
2. Determination of whether the application for refund was made within the prescribed time limit.
3. Consideration of whether the application for refund, though addressed to the Assistant Collector, was valid even if presented through the Superintendent of Central Excise.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved the interpretation of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which states that any person claiming a refund of duty must make an application to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise within six months from the date of payment. The key contention was whether the application had to be physically presented to the Assistant Collector or if it was sufficient to address the application to the Assistant Collector and have it presented through the Superintendent of Central Excise.
Issue 2:
The assessee, a tea manufacturer entitled to partial exemption from excise duty, had filed a claim for refund within the prescribed time limit. The claim was based on the excess clearance of tea over the base period, as per the government notification. The claim was initially filed on 3rd August 1979 but reached the Assistant Collector's office on 24th November 1979, after the expiry of the six-month period. The question was whether the delay in physically reaching the Assistant Collector's office should bar the claim.
Issue 3:
The debate revolved around whether the application for refund, though addressed to the Assistant Collector, was valid even if presented through the Superintendent of Central Excise. The assessee argued that the application was correctly addressed to the Assistant Collector, following past practices, and the delay in physical receipt should not penalize the claim. The Revenue contended that the application must be physically filed before the Assistant Collector within the time limit.
The High Court, after considering the arguments and relevant precedents, held in favor of the assessee. The Court emphasized that the application being addressed to the Assistant Collector was sufficient compliance with Rule 11, even if presented through the Superintendent. The Court cited the Supreme Court's disfavor towards technical limitations to defeat legitimate claims. The Court also referenced a similar case where the claim was considered valid despite being presented through the Superintendent. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the claim was made within the specified time, and the delay in physical receipt did not invalidate the claim. The judgment clarified that the application being addressed to the Assistant Collector was the critical requirement, and the practice of presenting it through the Superintendent was acceptable. The Court answered all three questions in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of substance over technicalities in such matters.
-
1990 (2) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the demand for customs duty on imported Strawberry Pulp.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 117/78-Cus, dated 9-6-1978.
3. Fulfillment of export obligations under the DEEC Scheme.
4. Application of the principle of promissory estoppel.
5. Compliance with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the issuance of a show cause notice.
6. Limitation period for raising the demand.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Demand for Customs Duty on Imported Strawberry Pulp:
The petitioners challenged the demand made by the Assistant Collector of Customs for payment of customs duty on Strawberry Pulp amounting to Rs. 8,22,610.89/-. The demand was based on the assertion that Strawberry Pulp did not conform to the list of items specified in Annexure-1 to Appendix-19 and was not covered by Notification No. 117/78-Cus, dated 9-6-1978. The petitioners argued that they had imported the pulp under a valid DEEC Scheme and had fulfilled all export obligations.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 117/78-Cus, Dated 9-6-1978:
The petitioners contended that Strawberry Pulp is covered under the said notification as it falls under the description of "Fruits preserved by freezing, containing added sugar." The technical specifications provided by Batewell Limited indicated that Strawberry Pulp is essentially Strawberry Puree/Paste without sugar or alcohol, used for manufacturing jam. The petitioners argued that the exemption was rightly granted at the time of importation.
3. Fulfillment of Export Obligations under the DEEC Scheme:
The petitioners provided evidence that they had fulfilled all export obligations by manufacturing and exporting the required quantities of Strawberry Jam and other products. The Customs authorities had duly recorded and attested these exports in the DEEC Book. The petitioners argued that having met all conditions, they should not be liable for any customs duty on the imported pulp.
4. Application of the Principle of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioners invoked the principle of promissory estoppel, arguing that they acted on the representation made by the respondents through the issuance of the Advance Licence under the DEEC Scheme. They contended that the respondents are now estopped from denying the benefits of the licence and imposing customs duty, as the petitioners had fulfilled all conditions and exported the manufactured goods.
5. Compliance with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 Regarding the Issuance of a Show Cause Notice:
The petitioners argued that no show cause notice was issued before raising the demand, violating Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, which mandates a notice to show cause within six months from the relevant date. The respondents admitted that there was an error on their part in not realizing the customs duty at the time of importation but did not allege any collusion or suppression of facts by the petitioners.
6. Limitation Period for Raising the Demand:
The court held that the demand was barred by limitation as it was made beyond the six-month period stipulated in Section 28 of the Customs Act. The goods were imported in March 1985, and the demand was made in June 1987 without issuing a show cause notice. The court emphasized that the respondents could not take advantage of their own mistake and penalize the petitioners.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the notice of demand issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. The writ petition succeeded, and the demand notice dated 10-6-1985 was quashed. The court also noted that the petitioners were prevented from availing the benefit of duty drawback due to the respondents' representation, further supporting the application of promissory estoppel. The operation of the order was stayed for a fortnight as requested by the respondents.
-
1990 (2) TMI 69
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack allowed the writ application to the limited extent of directing the government company, opposite party No. 6, and its officers not to discontinue the supply of ammonium nitrate melt to the petitioner until a final decision in a suit. The court held that money claims should be decided by the Civil Court, leaving the question of tax liability open. No costs were awarded.
-
1990 (2) TMI 68
Issues Involved
1. Entitlement to the refund of excise duty paid under a mistake of law.
2. Consideration of the writ petition filed after the expiry of three years.
3. Justification of refund in light of potential unjust enrichment.
Detailed Analysis
1. Entitlement to Refund of Excise Duty Paid Under a Mistake of Law
The petitioner, a public charitable trust, sought a refund of excise duty paid under a mistaken classification of goods. Initially, the petitioner classified condensers under Tariff Item No. 68 based on the Department's opinion, which was later acknowledged as incorrect. The correct classification under Tariff Item No. 30, which provided an exemption, was accepted by the Assistant Collector in 1981. The petitioner realized the mistake in 1980 and filed for a refund in 1982. The court held that the mistaken classification constituted a mistake of law, entitling the petitioner to a refund under Section 72 of the Contract Act, independent of the provisions of the Excise Act.
2. Consideration of the Writ Petition Filed After the Expiry of Three Years
The writ petition was filed in 1986, four years after the realization of the mistake. The Department argued that the suit would be barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. However, the court noted that the delay was justified due to the intervening proceedings and the petitioner's reliance on a 1973 circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which directed officers to grant refunds for claims made within three years of realizing the mistake. The court emphasized that the delay was caused by the Department's own actions, including the prolonged appeal process, and not by the petitioner.
3. Justification of Refund in Light of Potential Unjust Enrichment
The court addressed the issue of unjust enrichment, noting that the petitioner's activities were charitable and educational, with no personal benefit to the trustees. The Full Bench judgment referenced by the court stated that the government cannot retain amounts unjustly recovered in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution. The court concluded that refunding the amount to the trust would be appropriate, as the funds would be used for public benefit.
Conclusion
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting the refund of the excise duty paid under a mistaken classification. The court also ordered the Department to pay interest at 12% per annum from 1982 until the date of payment and awarded costs of Rs. 5,000 to the petitioner. The application for a stay of the order was rejected.
-
1990 (2) TMI 67
Issues:
1. Export of Intensive Care Respirator System with accessories
2. Interpretation of Export Control Order
3. Validity of refusal by customs authorities
4. Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 208, Customs
5. Bill of Entry description and restrictions on usage
6. Constitutional guarantee under Article 19 for trading by way of export
Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief for the export of Intensive Care Respirator System with accessories, a life-saving device, to a purchaser in Moscow. Customs authorities refused to endorse the shipping bill for export, citing doubts on legality.
2. The petitioner argued that under the Export Control Order, the subject goods could be freely exported to any country. The authorities' refusal was contested as incorrect interpretation of the law.
3. Customs officials sought clarification from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, who advised against permitting the export. However, the court found no explicit law prohibiting the export of the item, thus ruling in favor of the petitioner.
4. The fourth respondent contended that the petitioner should not benefit twice by exporting an item previously imported duty-free. The court clarified that the Exemption Notification did not restrict export unless expressly prohibited by law.
5. The description of the consignment in the Bill of Entry as "for home consumption" was deemed a mere label, not a usage restriction. The absence of export restrictions in the Bill of Entry or Import Regulations supported the petitioner's right to export.
6. The judgment emphasized the promotion of exports while safeguarding the country's economy. The court highlighted the Constitutional guarantee under Article 19 for trading through export, allowing the export of items not explicitly prohibited by law.
In conclusion, the court granted the writ petition, directing customs authorities to endorse the shipping bill for the export of the Intensive Care Respirator System. The judgment highlighted the absence of legal prohibitions on the export of the item, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement to relief under the law.
-
1990 (2) TMI 66
Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of Notifications and Utilization of Accumulated Credit
2. Interpretation of Rules 57K and 57N
3. Right to Utilize Earned Credit Post-Rescission of Notifications
4. Precedent Cases and Principles of Retrospective Operation
Detailed Analysis:
1. Withdrawal of Notifications and Utilization of Accumulated Credit:
The petitioners, manufacturers of Vanaspati and soap, were availing of excise duty rebates for using minor oils as per Notifications No. 27/87 and 40/87, which were subsequently amended and replaced. On 25-8-1989, these notifications were rescinded by Notification No. 39/89. Following the rescission, excise officers instructed the petitioners to file fresh classification lists and stop utilizing the accumulated credit for excise duty payment on Vanaspati and soap. The petitioners challenged this directive, seeking a writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondents from preventing the utilization of the earned credit.
2. Interpretation of Rules 57K and 57N:
The court examined Rules 57K and 57N to determine the rights conferred upon manufacturers. Rule 57K enabled the government to specify final products, raw materials, and credit rates. Rule 57N stipulated the manner of credit utilization. The court noted that these rules were enabling provisions allowing manufacturers to earn and utilize credit for excise duty payments on final products if specified conditions were met.
3. Right to Utilize Earned Credit Post-Rescission of Notifications:
The court held that the right to utilize earned credit did not end with the rescission of the notifications. The rescission only halted the accrual of new credit but did not nullify the right to use already earned credit. The manufacturers had a vested right to utilize the credit earned before 25-8-1989, as the rules and notifications did not specify a period for credit utilization. The court emphasized that the manufacturers, having complied with the rules and notifications, had a crystallized monetary right that could not be retrospectively nullified by rescinding the notifications.
4. Precedent Cases and Principles of Retrospective Operation:
The court referred to several precedents, including:
- London Star Diamond Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India: The Bombay High Court held that benefits earned before a policy change could not be retrospectively denied.
- Collector of Central Excise v. Ashoka Mills Ltd.: The Supreme Court ruled that withdrawal of a concessional rate could not retrospectively apply to goods cleared before the withdrawal.
- Shri Vijayalakshmi Rice Mills v. State of M.P.: The Supreme Court stated that notifications take effect from their issue date, not retroactively.
- Govinddas v. Income-tax Officer: The Supreme Court reiterated that retrospective operation should not impair existing rights unless explicitly stated.
The court concluded that the manufacturers' right to utilize the earned credit persisted despite the rescission of the notifications. The petitions were allowed, and a writ of Mandamus was issued directing the respondents to permit the utilization of the earned credit for excise duty payments on Vanaspati and soap. The court also discharged the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners and denied the respondents' request for a stay of the judgment.
Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, affirming their right to utilize the accumulated credit earned before the rescission of the notifications. The judgment emphasized the principles of non-retrospective operation and the protection of vested rights under statutory provisions.
-
1990 (2) TMI 65
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction accorded by the Development Commissioner for prosecution.
2. Discharge of accused Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7 due to the sanction not covering them.
3. Whether the complaint disclosed any evasion of import duty.
4. Territorial jurisdiction of the sanctioning authority.
5. Impact of collateral proceedings on the current prosecution.
6. Recovery of import duty and its effect on the prosecution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Sanction Accorded by the Development Commissioner for Prosecution:
The main contention was whether the sanction given by Niranjan Singh, described as the Development Commissioner of KFTZ, was valid under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act, which requires the sanction of the "Collector of Customs." The court noted that it was not clear if Niranjan Singh held both posts and if he was exercising his powers as the Collector of Customs. The court found that statutory powers are vested in an authority, not an individual, and since the sanction was given in the capacity of Development Commissioner, it raised questions about its validity. However, the court decided that this issue could be addressed at a later stage, as it was not possible to conclusively determine the matter at the current stage.
2. Discharge of Accused Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7 Due to the Sanction Not Covering Them:
The Magistrate had discharged accused Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7 because the sanction did not cover them. The complainant argued that these accused were integrally connected with accused Nos. 1 and 5, and thus the sanction should implicitly include them. However, the court held that Section 140 of the Customs Act requires specific proceedings against individuals responsible for the company's conduct. Since the sanction did not explicitly cover accused Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7, their discharge by the Magistrate was upheld.
3. Whether the Complaint Disclosed Any Evasion of Import Duty:
The complaint alleged "evasion of payment of import duty," while the sanction referred to "unauthorised export of bonded goods." The court acknowledged a technical merit in the variation of terms but noted that Section 2(39) of the Customs Act defines smuggling broadly. The court concluded that the variation between the complaint and the sanction did not render the latter unmaintainable at this stage.
4. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Sanctioning Authority:
The defense argued that the offences were committed in Bombay, and thus the sanction should have been accorded by the Collector of Customs at Bombay, not by an officer based in KFTZ. The court recognized the need for a territorial nexus between the offence's location and the sanctioning authority but noted that the components came duty-free to KFTZ, which was entitled to collect import duty. This issue was also relegated for consideration at a later stage.
5. Impact of Collateral Proceedings on the Current Prosecution:
The defense argued that the exoneration of accused Nos. 1 and 5 in collateral proceedings should result in the quashing of the current complaint. The court examined the exoneration in disciplinary proceedings and found that accused No. 1 was given the benefit of doubt, not honorably exonerated. The court concluded that the exoneration did not automatically nullify the basis of the current complaint.
6. Recovery of Import Duty and Its Effect on the Prosecution:
The defense contended that since the import duty had been recovered, the prosecution should not continue. The court acknowledged the impermissibility of prolonged prosecutions but emphasized the gravity of the alleged offences. The court decided that justice required the law to take its due course, despite the recovery of import duty.
Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Magistrate's order, dismissing both the appeal and the revision. The court confirmed the discharge of accused Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7 and decided that the issues regarding the validity of the sanction and other contentions should be addressed at a later stage in the trial. The complainant and accused Nos. 1 and 5 were directed to appear before the Magistrate to proceed further with the case.
-
1990 (2) TMI 64
Issues: Refund of penalty amount under Customs Act, delay in refund, entitlement to interest on delayed refund.
Analysis:
The petitioners, who are shipping agents of a foreign company, were directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 3,93,777 under Section 116 of the Customs Act for short landing of goods. Upon revision, the penalty was set aside, and the Collector ordered a refund of Rs. 3,97,777 to the petitioners. However, only Rs. 3,26,477 was refunded after adjustments for other liabilities. Despite repeated requests, the Collector did not refund the remaining amount, leading the petitioners to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court.
The Court noted that the petitioners had received Rs. 3,25,000 but were still owed Rs. 1,477. The petitioners requested interest on the entire amount from November 29, 1985, onwards. The Court found the Collector's delay in refunding the amount unjustified and held that interest should be paid on the delayed refund. The respondents' argument that the delay was due to pending proceedings before the Government of India was dismissed as no evidence or affidavit was presented to support this claim.
Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to refund the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,477 to the petitioners within four weeks. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum on the refunded amount of Rs. 3,25,000 from November 29, 1985, to November 22, 1988, when the amount was deposited in Court. Interest at the same rate was also to be paid on the balance amount of Rs. 1,477 from November 29, 1985, until the date of payment. The respondents were further instructed to bear the costs of the petitioners.
-
1990 (2) TMI 63
Issues:
1. Validity of the withdrawal of exemption granted in respect of TIOC.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the proceedings before the Collector of Customs (Appeals).
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of the withdrawal of exemption granted in respect of TIOC
The Petitioners imported Active Erythromycin Thicyonate (TIOC) and claimed partial exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 64/79-Cus. The consignment was assessed to customs duty at 25% ad valorem, and the duty was paid. Subsequently, the Government withdrew the exemption through Notification No. 218/84 dated 10-8-1984, but the Gazette containing the notification was made public only on 13-9-1984. The Petitioners argued that since the notification was not public knowledge until 13-9-1984, they were not liable to pay the additional duty and penalty demanded by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The court cited precedents emphasizing that publication in the Gazette alone does not suffice; the information must be made available to the public for enforcement. Considering this, the court held that the demand made by the Customs Authorities was premature and not legally sustainable. Therefore, the Petitioners succeeded in their Writ Petition challenging the imposition of additional duty and penalty.
Issue 2: Compliance with principles of natural justice in the proceedings before the Collector of Customs (Appeals)
The Petitioners had filed an application for stay and dispensation of deposit before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), requesting the waiver of the penalty amount pending the appeal hearing. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) ordered the Petitioners to deposit the penalty within 15 days, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The Petitioners argued that they were not granted a hearing before the order was passed, alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court found merit in this contention, stating that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not providing a hearing to the Petitioners before passing the order. Consequently, the court held that the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) must fail on this ground as well.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Petitioners, setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs and the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
-
1990 (2) TMI 62
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to consider a claim for refund of excess excise duty paid by mistake of law outside the purview of Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Entitlement to claim a refund of excess excise duty paid by mistake of law from the Union of India, even if such a claim falls outside the scope of Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Authority of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise:
The primary issue was whether the Assistant Collector of Central Excise has the authority to consider a refund claim for excess excise duty paid by mistake of law if it falls outside the purview of Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The facts revealed that the respondent paid excise duty including freight and transit insurance charges, which was later ruled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Limited as not forming part of the assessable value. The respondent sought a refund for the excess duty paid, part of which was within the six-month period stipulated by Section 11-B and part of which was outside this period.
The Assistant Collector granted the refund for the period within six months but issued a show cause notice for the rest, which was outside the six-month window. The Assistant Collector ultimately rejected the refund claim for the period beyond six months, citing lack of authority under Section 11-B, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge.
The court held that the Assistant Collector's power is derived from and circumscribed by Section 11-B, which mandates that a refund claim must be made within six months from the relevant date. Sub-section (4) of Section 11-B further clarifies that no claim for refund of duty of excise shall be entertained except as provided under the Act. Therefore, the Assistant Collector cannot consider a refund claim outside this period. This position aligns with the Supreme Court decisions in Burmah Construction Company v. State of Orissa and D.R. Mills v. Commissioner of Civil Supplies, reinforcing that statutory authorities cannot grant refunds beyond the statutory period.
2. Entitlement to Claim Refund from Union of India:
The second issue was whether a person can claim a refund of excess excise duty paid by mistake of law from the Union of India, even if such a claim does not fall within Section 11-B. The court observed that the right to claim a refund of tax or duty paid without authority of law stems from Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law, and Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which mandates repayment of money paid by mistake.
The court noted that if a person realizes that an amount was collected or paid without authority of law, they can demand a refund from the Government based on Section 72. If the Government fails to refund, the individual can file a civil suit or a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This principle was supported by the Supreme Court in H.M.M. Limited v. Bangalore City Corporation, which held that realization of tax without authority of law is bad and must be refunded.
Therefore, the respondent was entitled to make an application before the Central Government for a refund of the excess duty paid, even though the application was initially made to the Assistant Collector. The court directed the Government of India to consider and dispose of the application within four months, taking into account Article 265 and Section 72.
Conclusion:
(i) The writ appeal was partly allowed.
(ii) The order directing the Assistant Collector to consider the refund application without reference to the limitation period under Section 11-B was set aside.
(iii) The direction to the Union of India to dispose of the refund application without reference to Section 11-B's limitation period was confirmed.
(iv) The Government of India was directed to consider and dispose of the application within four months, considering Article 265 and Section 72.
-
1990 (2) TMI 61
Issues:
1. Whether the claim of refund made by the petitioner/Company before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which was partly disallowed, may be sustained in law and refund of the duty paid under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 may be directed by a writ of mandamus.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, sought a refund of duty paid under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner manufactured and sold parts and accessories of tractors and hydraulic gear pumps. The issue arose when the products of the company were wrongly classified under Chapter Heading 87.0K of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, instead of the correct classifications under Chapter Heading 87.08 and 84.13. The petitioner paid duty for various periods, and while the refund was allowed for one period, it was rejected for others by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The rejection was based on the ground that the claim was time-barred under Section 11-B of the Act.
The Court considered the principle established by judicial decisions in India, particularly citing the case of Patel India (P) Ltd., which held that an unauthorized levy of tax or duty is liable to be refunded if demanded, even if there is a prescribed period under Section 11-B of the Act. The Court emphasized that the right to claim refund of an unauthorized levy cannot be taken away merely due to a prescribed period. It further referenced a similar case involving I.T.C. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, where the Court directed a refund for payments made under a mistake of law, reiterating that amounts paid under a mistake of law are liable to be refunded within the prescribed period under the general law of limitation.
The Court concluded that the payment made by the petitioner was under a mistake of law, as the duty was not paid in accordance with the provisions of the Tariff Act. It held that the levy was unauthorized and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a refund, rejecting the argument that allowing the refund would unjustly enrich the petitioner. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the refund to be made within one month from the date of the order.
-
1990 (2) TMI 60
Issues:
Challenge to levy of additional duty under Customs Tariff Act based on exemption notification. Refund application rejected as time-barred under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing drawing pens, imported goods under Open General Licence and were charged additional duty under Customs Tariff Act. The petitioners claimed the levy of additional duty was contrary to law based on Notification No. 71/86 and 164/86. Refund applications were rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, leading to the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the refund cannot be declined based on limitation if duty was recovered without authority of law. The key issue was whether the additional duty levied on the imports was in violation of law. The exemption notification dated February 10, 1986, exempted duty on goods falling under Chapter Heading 90.17, including drawing and mathematical instruments. The court agreed that the Department was not entitled to recover additional duty in light of this notification.
3. The Department contended that the exemption should not be interpreted based on Central Excise rules and that only drawing and mathematical instruments were exempted, not spare parts or accessories. However, the court found that the items imported by the petitioners fell under Heading 90.17 and were not treated as spare parts or accessories. The Department's argument was deemed unsustainable, and the levy of additional duty was held to be in violation of law.
4. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the Department was directed to refund the additional duty paid by the petitioners. The Assistant Collector of Customs was instructed to calculate and make the payment within three months. If the payment was delayed, the petitioners would be entitled to interest at 12% from the expiry of the three-month period. No costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1990 (2) TMI 59
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Refund of excise duty paid by the Petitioners.
3. Allegations of the Petitioner-firm being a dummy unit.
4. Applicability of alternative remedies and pending Appeal before the Tribunal.
Analysis:
1. The Petitioners filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 to obtain a license and refund of excise duty. The Petitioners claimed they were entitled to exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 83/83-CE due to the value of their production. However, the Respondents did not issue the license despite acknowledging the application made in 1982.
2. The Respondents initiated proceedings against the Petitioners, alleging the Petitioner-firm was a dummy unit created by another entity. The Collector of Central Excise held in an Order that the Petitioner-firm was fictitious, leading to the imposition of excise duty and penalties. The Petitioners contended that their appeal against this Order was pending before the Tribunal.
3. The Government Pleader argued that the Writ Petition was not maintainable due to the pending appeal before the Tribunal. Citing legal precedents, the Government Pleader emphasized that Article 226 should not be used to bypass statutory procedures unless in exceptional circumstances. The Court agreed with the Government Pleader's argument and held that the issues raised in the Writ Petition overlapped with the proceedings before the Collector of Central Excise and the pending appeal.
4. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition on grounds of maintainability, stating that the Petitioners could not seek a license or refund once their firm was deemed fictitious. The Court rejected the request to allow the Petitioners to clear goods under protest or adjourn the matter. The Court also declined to order a refund of duty paid, suggesting the Petitioners could raise the issue before the Tribunal. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, and the interim order was extended at the request of the Petitioners' counsel.
-
1990 (2) TMI 58
Issues:
1. Dispute over the valuation of imported goods
2. Refusal to release goods due to demurrage charges
3. Application of Equipment Sales Corporation's case to the present situation
Analysis:
Issue 1: Dispute over the valuation of imported goods
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing plastic bangles and molding articles, imported raw materials with an invoice value of US Dollars 650. Customs Authorities questioned the valuation and issued a show cause notice to raise the value to US Dollars 4000. The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioner, fixing the value at 750 US Dollars. The Department's appeal to the Supreme Court was unsuccessful. When the petitioner sought to release the goods at the appellate value, they were refused due to demurrage charges.
Issue 2: Refusal to release goods due to demurrage charges
The goods detained were under the custody of the respondents as approved custodians per Public Notification No. 21/81. The Court referred to the Equipment Sales Corporation's case, stating that a detention certificate must be issued when goods are detained by Customs authorities. If the importer succeeds in the dispute, a demurrage waiver certificate should follow. In this case, the respondents did not issue a demurrage waiver certificate despite the favorable ruling, leading to the goods remaining uncleared.
Issue 3: Application of Equipment Sales Corporation's case
The Department argued that the Equipment Sales Corporation's case did not apply to the present situation. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that the petitioner had succeeded in the litigation by having the value fixed at 750 US Dollars, not the proposed 4510 US Dollars. The Court criticized the Department's refusal to issue a demurrage waiver certificate, as required by the legal precedent.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing respondents 1 and 2 to issue the necessary demurrage waiver certificate. Upon production of the certificate, respondent 3 was ordered to release the goods to the petitioner without demanding any charges. The Court upheld the principles established in the Equipment Sales Corporation's case, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and providing relief to successful litigants in customs disputes.
-
1990 (2) TMI 57
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff, availability of alternative remedy under Customs Act, 1962, appellate jurisdiction of Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, condonation of delay in filing appeal.
Analysis:
The appellant imported goods claiming them to be Polystyrene but Customs Authorities disputed the classification, directing them to be classified as Copolymers. An adjudication order was passed confirming the classification as Copolymers. The appellant challenged this order through a writ petition, which was rejected by the Trial Court stating that the dispute related to the classification of goods under the Customs Tariff and the appellant should have pursued the alternative remedy available under the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that the question of classification falls within the competence of appropriate authorities and does not raise a point of initial jurisdiction. Therefore, no interference was warranted in the impugned decision.
The High Court noted that the appellate forum for such matters is the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. The appellant, having pursued the writ jurisdiction, was advised to file an appeal within four weeks to seek condonation of delay. The respondents did not object to the appeal being entertained despite the limitation period having expired. The High Court directed the appellant to file the appeal within the specified time and assured that the Tribunal would consider condoning the delay upon application. The appellant was also given the opportunity to request an expedited hearing of the appeal, with the Tribunal expected to dispose of the matter promptly.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, subject to the directions provided regarding the filing of the appeal within the stipulated time and the possibility of condonation of delay by the Tribunal. The appellant was granted the right to raise all relevant points in the appeal before the Tribunal, with an emphasis on expeditious resolution. All parties were instructed to act in accordance with the operative part of the judgment.
-
1990 (2) TMI 56
The High Court of Bombay quashed a show cause notice dated September 14, 1989, challenged by petitioners under Article 226. The notice alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating they were not involved in the alleged evasion of duty. The show cause notice was quashed, and respondents were restrained from further proceedings. No costs were awarded. (Case Citation: 1990 (2) TMI 56 - High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
-
1990 (2) TMI 55
The petition challenged a penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector of Customs and confirmed by the appellate authority. The penalty of Rs. 76,098 was reduced to Rs. 20,556 as the value of the short-landed goods was accepted to be lb564. The petitioners were required to pay the reduced penalty amount within four weeks.
....
|
9911796707
