Indian Tool Manufacturers Ltd. Vs Union of India

Bombay High Court 6 Jan 1992 Writ Petition No. 1918 of 1982 (1992) 59 ELT 379
Bench: Division Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 1918 of 1982

Hon'ble Bench

K. Sukumaran, J; B.P. Saraf, J

Advocates

Shri E.P. Bharucha and Miss. S.V. Khed, instructed by M/s. Mulla and Mulla and Graigie Blunt and Caroe, for the Appellant; Shri J.P. Devadhar, for the Respondent

Acts Referred

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 — Section 11B

Judgement Text

Translate:

K. Sukumaran, J.@mdashThe petitioners had imported the goods i.e. alloy steel described in Item 4 mentioned in Notification Exhibit A dated 28-

2-1982. That notification was repealed on 20-8-1982. In respect of goods imported during the period between 28-2-1982 and 20-8-1982

authorities sought to levy auxiliary duty. The petitioners protested against the same. Interim relief permitting the petitioners to release the goods on

furnishing Bank Guarantee was granted.

2. The question involved in this Writ Petition is similar to the one considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Apar Private Ltd. and others Vs.

Union of India and others, .

3. In the light of the principle laid down therein, the exemption from duty enjoyed by the goods imported by the petitioners during the period of

operation of Notification dated 20-2-1982, cannot be disturbed or deprived of by operation of later Notification. The said principle has equal

application in relation to auxiliary duty. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioners not to be burdened by duty cast on the basis of

Notification dated 28-2-1982 is justified. It has only to be allowed.

4. A portion of goods was cleared on payment of duty and the balance was cleared on furnishing the Bank Guarantee. The Bank Guarantee shall

stand discharged in the light of the observation and conclusion as indicated above.

5. Counsel for the Respondents contends that the question of refund is subject to the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991.

It is unnecessary for us to make any observations in regard to the claim of the petitioners for refund or the stand of the respondents to resist the

same. As and when the claim is made the authorities will adjudicate upon the same in accordance with law.

6. Counsel prayed for a direction to the Prothonotary to return the Bank Guarantee. We find that such a direction is superfluous. In the light of the

observations in the judgment, we are sure that in such cases, without specific direction, the Prothonotary would take action for return of the Bank

Guarantee.

7. We allow the Writ Petition granting the above reliefs.

8. Certified copy will be furnished expeditiously.

From The Blog
Bhim Singh, MLA vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (1985)
Oct
18
2025

Landmark Judgements

Bhim Singh, MLA vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (1985)
Read More
The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. vs The State of Rajasthan and Others (1962)
Oct
18
2025

Landmark Judgements

The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. vs The State of Rajasthan and Others (1962)
Read More