TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded) through the Port of Bombay and paid countervailing duty aggregating to ₹ 3,72,863.04. (B) On 17th/18th March, 1972, the Gujarat High Court delivered a judgment in M/s. Prem Conductor Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Custom, (Special Civil Application No. 909 of 1970 with Special Civil Applications Nos. 910 and 911 of 1970) holding that electrolytic aluminium (other than extruded) rods were not liable to countervailing duty under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. (That judgment is pending in appeal in the Supreme Court. We are however assured by both learned Counsel that the same would have no bearing on our proceeding with this appeal). (C) According to the appellant, it was then that the appellant became aware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, it was urged by Mr. Deodhar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that this was a matter involving a disputed question of fact as to the point of time when the appellant came to know that the countervailing duty had been paid under a mistake. He further urged that if the appellant had exercised due care the appellant would have known of a Public Notice issued as far back as 15th October, 1967 exempting electrolytic aluminium wire rods from countervailing duty, with the result that the petition having been filed on 17th December, 1974, was barred by the law of limitation. No other ground was urged on behalf of the respondents. 5. Coming to the Public Notice relied on by Mr. Deodhar, in September 1967 it had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven the basic information in his affidavit-in-reply instead of contenting himself with the elasticity of language resorted to by him. 7. It is highly improbable and for that matter almost inconceivable, that an importer and a businessman would blithely go on paying duty to the Department which he knew he was under no obligation to pay. 8. It is therefore obvious that the appellant could not have known of the Public Notice posted in the Customs House at Madras until it was brought home to him by the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. In D. Cawasji Co. v. State of Mysore, AIR (1975) Supreme Court 813 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 154) (S.C.), observing that where a suit will lie to recover money paid under a mistake of law, a writ petition fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana and others, AIR (1980) Supreme Court 1037, it was observed as under :- ....Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people s money, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the Dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation. There is no law of limitation, especially for public bodies, on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. Nor is it palatable to our jurisprudence to turn down the prayer for high prerogative writs, on the negative plea of alternative remedy since the root principle of law married to justice, is ubi jue ibi remeduim. ... 11. In summation : (a) duty was collected by the Department without authority of law; (b) the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
