TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the imports made by the said mills. Having regard to the determined stand of the respondents not to state their case on paper, we must assume that there was neither any public interest nor any exceptional nature involved and that others placed in circumstances similar to that in which the said mills were placed must have the same benefit as was advanced to the said mills. Appeal allowed. - 1583 of 1986 - - - Dated:- 28-1-1997 - S.P. Bharucha and Faizan Uddin, JJ. [Judgment per : S.P. Bharucha, J.]. - Writ Petition (Civil) 1583 of 1986 - The writ petitioners imported stainless steel strips. The stainless steel strips arrived at Bombay on 6th September, 1976. They were cleared for home consumption on 16th and 30th September, 1976. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioners also sought the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 27/77, dated 24th February, 1977 to be applied to them retrospectively. This was refused on 23rd June, 1978 on the ground that the exemption could not be issued so as to have retrospective effect. The petitioners had been pursuing the Statutory appeals provided under the Customs Act in respect of the demand made upon them for duty on 10th and 11th January, 1977 as afore-stated. Having failed before the authorities, they preferred an appeal before the Central Excise Gold Control Tribunal. The Tribunal also indicated that, in the circumstances, no relief could be granted to them. 4.Along with the appeals that they filed against the order of the Tribunal, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent, has not attempted to justify the action of the respondents in not filing a counter and in not ascribing a reason for treating the said mills in a fashion different from that in which the petitioners have been treated. 7.It is not the case of the respondents that the import made by the said mills was in any way different from that made by the petitioners. There is no indication as to why the petitioners have been treated differently from the mills. Where power under Section 25(2) is exercised to grant a special exemption from payment of duty, under circumstances of an exceptional nature to be stated in such order, we would have expected the respondents to state on affidavit what it was that moved them in the public interest to grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
