TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order – the circular of the Ministry of Finance in this case was sufficiently clear – petition decided in favour of assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 5895 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2012 - Akil Kureshi and Harsha Devani, JJ. Shri Rakesh Gupta with Uday Joshi for M/s. Trivedi Gupta, for the Petitioner. Shri Harin P. Raval, Ms. Amee Yajnik and Anshin H. Desai, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This petition is filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and its Deputy Municipal Commissioner calling in question legality of recovery notices dated 5-11-2007, 12-11-2007 and 3-12-2007. They have also challenged orders-in-original dated 14-6-2006, 16-6-2006 and 28-3-2007 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Facts may be noted in brief : 2.1 The State of Gujarat experienced devastating earthquake on 26-1-2001. The impact of the earthquake was felt by the entire State as well as in the neighbouring areas. City of Ahmedabad also faced its fair share of brunt of the earthquake. Several buildings collapsed leading to loss of human lives and property. To meet with such natural calamity in future, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation imported certain goods useful f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that despite sufficient time being granted, no such document was produced before him. He concluded that there was difference in the FOB value between the goods imported and the exemption order. He was, therefore, of the opinion that such equipments/goods were not covered by the exemption order issued by the Ministry of Finance. 2.3 With respect to the goods imported under one bill of entry, the Deputy Commissioner ICD/CSF, passed an order on 14-6-2006 and for similar reasons confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 82,07,397/-. We may note that with respect to remaining two bills of entries so far no order has been passed by the Customs Authorities. 2.4 It emerges that the petitioners had challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 14-6-2006 before the Appellate Commissioner. Such appeal, however, came to be dismissed by an order dated 28-3-2007 only on the ground of delay. It is not in dispute that against such appellate order, the petitioners did not prefer any further appeal and it is equally undisputed that the petitioners had not challenged the Deputy Commissioner s order dated 16-6-2006 before any appellate forum. 2.5 While these proceedings were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment of India in the later order dated 12-11-2007. 4. Counsel submitted that powers under Section 25(2) of the Act can be exercised even after the import of goods and the duty, if any, recovered would also be refundable. In this respect, counsel relied on a circular dated 12-5-1997 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, in which relying on the opinion of the Attorney General of India on the scope of Section 25(2) of the Act, it was clarified that : If the requirements of Section 25(2) are satisfied, I am of the view that an exemption can be passed under Section 25(2) even after the goods have been imported, exemption can also be granted even after the duty has been paid in which even the duty paid has to be refunded. 5. Counsel relied on the following decisions of learned Single Judge of two High Courts taking a view that under Section 25(2) of the Act, the Government of India has the power to issue necessary exemption orders even after import of the goods : (i) In case of Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. and I.T.C. Ltd. v. U.O.I. and Ors. reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 234 (Madras) (ii) In case of Hari Vishnu Pophale and Ors. v. Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing reasons : It is not in dispute that the Government of India had powers under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act to grant exemption in individual cases from payment of customs duties even after the import is made and duty collected. Section 25(2) of the Act reads as under : If the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by special order in each case, exempt from the payment of duty, under circumstances of an exceptional nature to be stated in such order, any goods on which duty is leviable. Under such provision, therefore, Central Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, may pass a special order and exempt any goods from payment of duty, under circumstances of exceptional nature to be stated in the order. The fact, that such order could be passed even after the imports, is not seriously disputed before us. In any case, the circular of the Ministry of Finance dated 12-5-1997 is sufficiently clear. Exemption order was passed initially on 22-3-2004. In such order the discrepancies and defects stood cured by the subsequent order of amendment dated 12-11-2007. In that view of the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
