TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come into play - An importer cannot as a matter of right insist on exemption from levy or payment of duty as a matter of course. In fact, the Supreme Court, in M.Jhangir Bhatusha V. Union of India (1989 (5) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), has gone further and held that there can be discriminatory treatment, where such treatment is done with just reasons, in the public interest - Decided against the assessee. - 1761 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2011 - DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.A. SAYED, JJ. Mr. Amin Merchant Petitioner-in person. Mr. A.S., Rao with Mr. Jitendra B. shah for the Respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT PER. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. During financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Petitioner imported eight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to exempt goods falling under Tariff Heading 2208.10 so as to give effect to the Budget proposal announced by the Finance Minister in Parliament for financial years 1993-94, and 1994-95; (ii) A direction to the Chief Commissioner of Customs to finalize assessment of the eight bills of entry after a notification is issued by the First and Second Respondents under section 25(1); (iii) A writ of Mandamus directing the Second Respondent to issue a notification under section 25(2) of the Customs Act 1962 for granting an exemption from customs duty for goods falling under Tariff Heading 2208.10 for financial years 1993-94, and 1994-95; (iv) an order for refund after assessments are finalized; and (v) An order for the payment of interest at the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . According to the Petitioner, the Finance Act of 1993, erroneously prescribed a duty of ₹ 300 per liter or 400%, whichever is higher in respect of Tariff Entry 2208.10. Accordingly, it was necessary for the Union Government to issue a notification under section 25(1) of Customs Act 1962 to rectify the error and, as a matter of fact, such notifications have been issued in other cases. 4. The Union of India, in response to the petition, has filed 2 affidavits of the Assistant Commissioner for Customs dated 9 June 2010 and 25 December 2010. According to the Respondents, the Speech of the Finance Minister while presenting budgetary proposals only highlights the more important proposals of the Budget. Budgetary changes are in fact en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for manufacturing beverages. The Petitioner does not dispute the fact that the goods imported by him fall within the Tariff Heading 2208.10. 6. Budgetary Proposals and the speech of the Finance Minister in Parliament introducing them are, it is well settled, not enacted law. Parliament may or may not accept the proposal. (B.K. Industries V. Union of India) (1993) 65 E.L.T. 465 (SC). The law as enacted is what is contained in the Finance Act after it is legislated upon by Parliament. Budgetary proposals constitute legislative material antecedent to the enactment of law. The rates of tax, are those which are prescribed by legislation, once it is enacted by Parliament. Once Parliament has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such order, any goods on which duty is leviable. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be justified in usurping the jurisdiction which is vested in the Central Government. Parliament has conferred that power on the Central Government on specific grounds of public interest. The exercise of the power may in a given circumstance be challenged on the ground that it has been exercised on a basis extraneous to what is contemplated by sections 1 and 2 of section 25. That would not justify the Court, on a plea such as that has been raised in the present case, to direct the Central Government to issue a notification in the first instance. 8. The petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Choksy Tube Company Ltd. V. U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (SC) : AIR 1991 SC 1931. 9. The Petitioner who has appeared in person has argued his case with considerable objectivity. The research which he has devoted to diverse aspects of the case is noteworthy. However, having considered the nature of the grievance, we find that the relief which has been sought would fall outside the parameters of the jurisdiction that is conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is the constitutional source of power governing the exercise of the jurisdiction. For these reasons, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. We accordingly, dismiss the petition. However in the circumstances of the case we leave parties to bear their own costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
