Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Anik Industries Limited Versus The Union of India & Others

2015 (12) TMI 244 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Validity of circular No.450/176/2014-Cus-IV dated 7/11/2014 - restriction on the petitioner from importing Alloy Steel Deformed Bars falling under Chapter Heading 7228 of the CTA - Held that:- By the Circular dated 07/11/2014, issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi the relevant factor to be considered in determining the applicability of BIS standard would be the description of the product in the Indian Standard and not the one indicated by the ITC (HS) Code. To put it simply; t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ified under the Order shall not be restricted if they are not corresponding BIS Standard in Column and the explanation can not be read to mean Steel Quality Control order shall be applicable to goods for which no ITC (HS) Code have been notified at all. Similarly, the issuance of the Steel Quality Control order Alloy Steel Products not covered by the headings and sub-heading of the ITC (HS) mentioned in the order have been allowed clearance at various ports all over India. And in this light it w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e dated 04th September 2014, I find that the Circular cannot be applied retrospectively to the consignment of the petitioner and hence in this light also the petition needs to be partly allowed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - W.P. No.9169/2014 - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - Smt. S.R. Waghmare. J For the Petitioner : Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel For the Respondent : Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel, Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Counsel, Shri Na .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ged in the business of import of Alloy Steel deformed reinforcement bars. In the Course normal business the petitioner has placed an order for import of the goods Alloy Steel reformed bars as per the contract bearing No.HL1415142-S dated 24/06/2014, by M/s. Hebei Taigang Iron & Steel Rolling Company Limited, China. The said manufacturer is a registered manufacturer of goods in accordance with the British Standards. The goods were shipped under the Commercial Invoice dated 04/09/2014. The Chi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ucts (Quality Control) Second Amendment Order has been made effective. However, respondent No.3 The Commissioner of Customs disregarded the past practice and refused to clear the goods. Hence, the present petition. 03. Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds challenging the impugned circular dated 07/11/14. Firstly, Counsel urged that the goods had arrived at the port of Chennai much before the steel products quality control order. The second amendment order has been made aft .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lloy steel products were not covered under Serial No.5 of the amended schedule to the Steel Quality Control Order. Counsel vehemently urged that the consignments of 25 M.M., 12 M.M., 16 M.M. & 2 M.M. imported deferred bars aggregating 4426.280 MT covered by the commercial invoice dated 4th September 2014 were not answerable to the 2nd Amendment of 2014 which came into effect from 04th December 2014 and the respondents were wrongly not clearing the goods of the petitioner. 04. Secondly, Couns .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods of the present petitioner are alloy steel and not covered under Column No.3 of the amended schedule. The mere fact that the corresponding BIS 1786 covers both alloy steel as well as non-alloy steel is not sufficient to atttract the provisions of the Steel Quality Control Order. And as such, Counsel urged that the impugned Circular is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 05. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the impugned Circula .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 06. Counsel for the petitioner also urged that this Court clothed with the jurisdiction to decide the petition primarily because the petitioner Anik Industries Limited has its registered office at Indore and conducted its business therefrom is sufficient ground to grant jurisdiction to this Court and no question should be raised regarding the application of the Circular which was published at Delhi; to the cause of the respondent as impugned in the writ appeal/petition. It is also submitted th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e jurisdiction of this Court in this regard can be raised by the respondent. 07. Per contra Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the constitutionality and legality of the Circular No.450/176/2014-Cus-IV dated 07/11/2014, raised by the petitioner is without jurisdiction and would be a matter to be decided by the Division Bench. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the Circular had been issued from New Delhi and the bill of the goods imported by the petitioner dated 13/09/2014 had reached the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r connected matters i.e. W.P. No.2909/14 (Magnum Steels vs. Union of India & ors.), W.P. No.2962/2014 (Steel Mart India Private Limited vs. Union of India & ors and W.P. No.(L) No.2963/2014 (Sri Jagannath Steel Co. vs. Union of India & ors., wherein the Bombay High Court in the matter of Global Tradex Limited (Supra) has held thus: In the above circumstances we do not find any basis to hold that the Circular issued on 7th November, 2014 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

300A of the Constitution of India. As a result of this conclusion, the Writ Petition fail. Rule is discharged in each of these Writ Petitions. There will be no orders as to costs. Counsel also relied in the case of M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited vs. Sanjeev Bhaskar & ors., (2013) 12 SCC 326. Counsel prayed that the petition was without merit and the same be dismissed. 08. On considering the above submissions, I find that the jurisdiction of this Court is well clothed to try the issues .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

up unnecessarily the consignments 09. And in this light the important question to be considered is whether the Steel Alloy Deformed Bars would be included in Sr. No.5? To crystalize the question I find that by the Circular dated 07/11/2014, issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi the relevant factor to be considered in determining the applicability of BIS standard would be the description of the product in the Indian Standard and not the one indicated by the ITC (HS) Code. To p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the amended schedule indicates that any case falling under the ITC (HS) Codes notified under the Order shall not be restricted if they are not corresponding BIS Standard in Column and the explanation can not be read to mean Steel Quality Control order shall be applicable to goods for which no ITC (HS) Code have been notified at all. Similarly, the issuance of the Steel Quality Control order Alloy Steel Products not covered by the headings and sub-heading of the ITC (HS) mentioned in the order h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Petitioners from importing the goods. The same does not hold up unnecessarily the consignments. 10. Thereby clearly indicating that the consignment of the present petitioner also has been wrongly withheld and is not necessary under the circumstances. Similarly, the next important question that now requires determination is whether this Court has the jurisdiction to pass the orders. Placing reliance on Naval Kishore Sharma vs. Union Of India and ors. the Apex Court has held thus: Cause of action .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the respondents within territorial limit of High Court's jurisdiction. 11. In this light, as mentioned in para 5 of the judgment above, Anik Industries Limited has registered office at Indore and conducts its business therefrom. Besides, the agreement has been entered into by the petitioner at Indore itself. Besides from the fact that the Bombay High Court has considered the impugned Circular; and similarly, the Court of Madras is also seized of the matter clearly indicating that the imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version