Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (11) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated that the power to exempt includes the power to modify or withdraw that benefit and the liability to pay duty under the Customs Act, 1962 arises when the taxable event occurs being subject to payment of duty as prevalent on the date of the entry of the goods. It was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to question the withdrawal of notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 when it was done in public interest. Equities have to be balanced and public interest must outweigh individual interest, Kanishka Trading clearly holds that withdrawal of such a benefit can be made in public interest during the period for which the benefit had earlier been intended. In our opinion, this is sufficient t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1-1989, the Central Government issued a public notice amending the said Policy for the period April 1983 to March 1984 whereby the import of fatty acids became a canalised item. The amendment clearly provided that import of fatty acids should be made only by the State Trading Corporation under Open General Licence and therein it was stated as under : - 3. Import of items referred to in para 2 of this public notice shall not be allowed under any import licence already issued or under paras 31, 34, 37, 38, 138, 148 and 203 of the Import Export Policy, 1983-84 or under any other provision of the Import Export Policy 1983-84, except against shipments from the country of origin already effected before the date of this public notice. This .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly on the doctrine of promissory estoppel which has been rejected by the High Court. A similar challenge on the ground of promissory estoppel has been rejected by this Court in Kanishka Trading Anr. etc. v. Union of India Anr. (C.A. Nos. 4336 etc. of 1994, decided on 19-10-1994) [since reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 782 (SC)]. Accordingly, decision of the Delhi High Court in Kaptan s Enterprises and Another v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Delhi 221 cannot furnish any support to the appellants in the present case. Shri Harish Salve, learned counsel for the appellants made no attempt to support the appellants case on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This point does not, therefore, require any further consideration. 6. The submission of S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anishka Trading which related to withdrawal of exemption from payment of duty etc. in exercise of the statutory powers, it was reiterated that the power to exempt includes the power to modify or withdraw that benefit and the liability to pay duty under the Customs Act, 1962 arises when the taxable event occurs being subject to payment of duty as prevalent on the date of the entry of the goods. It was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to question the withdrawal of notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 when it was done in public interest. Equities have to be balanced and public interest must outweigh individual interest, Kanishka Trading clearly holds that withdrawal of such a benefit c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pression things done in a general sense is misplaced. In the present case the language of the exception made in the amended Import Policy is clear and unequivocal excluding from its ambit all such goods, except those in transit because of the shipment having been made. That decision does not, therefore, require any further consideration. 10. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal has no merit and is dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand) only as costs. Civil Appeal Nos. 7154 7155 of 1994 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13040 and 14337 of 1994) 11. In view of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 7153 of 1994 [arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20837 of 1993], these appeals are also dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates