TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stry of Commerce - In the instant case, the appellants were also issued a license as well as authorization prescribing 3% rate of duty. In these circumstances, failure of customs authorities to issue notification on time cannot be held against the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/536/09 - Order No. A/86379 / 2018 - Dated:- 16-5-2018 - Hon ble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri S.R. Nair, E.O (AR) for Appellant Shri P.P. Jadeja, Consultant (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs against order of Commissioner (Appeals) permitting reassessment of Bills of Entry. 2. Learned AR p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication reducing the duty rate in respect of EPCG scheme from 5% to 3% on 11.4.2008 and it was made effective from 1.4.2008. He argued that in these circumstances, the delay in issuing the corresponding customs notification revised the duty from 5% to 3% should not be a reason for imposing the duty liability on the respondents. It was argued that the Customs authority cannot review or question or reject the benefit granted by the Government of India in the Import Policy through DGFT. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that while on the one hand DGFT vide Notification No. 1(RE- 2008)/2004-09 dated 11.4.2008 had reduced the rate of duty under EPCG scheme to 3% and accordingly the license was issued to the respondent unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluding the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech after considering the financial implications of the grant of the exemption to milk. It was found that the overall benefit to the state's economy and the public would be greater if the exemption were allowed. The respondents have passed on the benefit of that exemption by providing various facilities and concessions for the upliftment of the milk producers. This has not been denied. It would, in the circumstances, be inequitable to allow the State Government now to resile from its decision to exempt milk and demand the purchase tax with retrospective effect from 1st April 1996 so that the respondents cannot in any event re-adjust the expenditure already made. The High Court was also right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
