Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (8) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts acted upon the interim order knowing full well that if the appeal was decided against them they would be required to pay duty at the rate of 92.5 per cent. Acting upon the interim order created no equity in favour of the appellants, nor are these any special or peculiar circumstances. In the second place, an undertaking given to Court is not an obligation imposed by the Court. It is a promise voluntarily made to the Court. Acting upon its own undertaking to court creates no equity in favour of the party giving it, nor is it a special or peculiar circumstance. In the third place, the passage from the decision in Jhangir Bhatusha's case [ 1989 (5) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] does not assist the appellants. In the fourth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T. 344 (SC) = 1989 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 201, but for the appellant's argument that there were special or peculiar circumstances which created an equity in its favour. 4.Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following passage in Jhangir Bhatusha's case : "13. First, as to the contention that both the reasons set forth in the exemption notifications under Section 25(2) of the Act are without foundation. It seems to us that the two reasons set forth in the exemption notifications can constitute a reasonable basis for those notifications. It does appear from the material before us that international prices were fluctuating, and although they may have shown a perceptible fall there was the apprehension that because of the history of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsiderations the learned Attorney General has drawn our attention, and we cannot say that they are not reasonably related to the policy underlying the exemption orders. So that the government would have sufficient supplies of edible at hand in order to feed the market, the learned Attorney General says, it was considered desirable and in the public interest to reduce the rate of customs duty to 5 per cent on the imports made by the State Trading Corporation. Now it is the Central Government which has to be satisfied, as the authority appointed by Parliament under Section 25(2), that it is necessary in the public interest to make the special orders of exemption. It has set out the reasons which prompted it to pass the orders. In our opinion, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion for stay of recovery of the difference in duty, the appellants were permitted to clear the quantity of caustic soda stated therein on the condition that they furnished security to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, for the difference in duty between 10 per cent and 92.5 per cent, and, in the event that the Collector was not satisfied with such security, the appellants furnished a bank guarantee for the said difference. The interim order recorded that the appellants undertook "not to sell caustic soda imported under the aforesaid licence at a rate higher than Rs. 5132 only per M.T. Ex-godown, which is represented by the Counsel for State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India Limited as the price at which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... own undertaking to court creates no equity in favour of the party giving it, nor is it a special or peculiar circumstance. 10.In the third place, the passage from the decision in Jhangir Bhatusha's case does not assist the appellants. 11.In the fourth place, should a court come to the conclusion that an exemption is arbitrary or discriminatory or violative of Article 14, it may strike the exemption down but it cannot widen its scope so as to cover those it finds have been discriminated against. Reference in this behalf may be made to the judgment in State of M.P. v. Mohan Singh - (1995) 6 S.C.C. 321, to which one of us (S.P. Bharucha, J.) was a party. Paragraph 6 is self-explanatory : "6. Here we part company with the High Court. Havi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates