Judgment

SHINGHAL, J.:- These appeal by special leave arise out of an order of the Central Government dated Jan, 16, 1969, by which six revisional applications of the appellants were dismissed, and a similar order dated March 19, 1969, in the remaining case. As the basis facts and the law governing them are quite similar, it will be sufficient to deal with the common point in controversy before us on the basis of the admitted facts, and to dispose of the appeals together.

2. The appellants obtained licences for the import of 102 cases of 3,00 Kgs. of nylon yarn. The yarn was shipped to Bombay on the basis of a letter of credit in favour of the foreign suppliers. When the shipment arrived, the appellants received the bill of lading and other documents of title from the bankers on or about Aug. 23, 1965, and paid for the same. They lodged the bill of entry the same day, and it has been claimed that the goods were assessed for duty by the customs authorities at a certain figure. The appellants stored the goods in the warehouse on Dec. 22, 1965. They cleared 32 cases for home consumption on May, 10, 1966, and there is no controversy in regard to it. The currency was devalued on June 6, 1966, and the Customs (Amendment) Ordinance, 1966, was promulgated on July 7, 1966, by which Ss. 14 and 15 of the Customs Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, were amended. The Ordinance was replaced by the Customs (Amendment) Act, 1966. The appellants cleared 12 cases of the aforesaid consignment on or about September 1, 1966. Another 12 cases were cleared on October 10, 1966, and 46 cases were cleared in two lots on or about Dec. 30, 1966 and Feb. 20, 1967. Their grievance was that the cases were allowed to be cleared on payment of enhanced duty according to the amended provisions of the Act. They paid the duty under protest and applied for refund of the excess payment on the ground that the amended law was not applicable as the consignments had been received, stored and assessed to duty before the promulgation of the Ordinance. The applications of the appellants for refund were rejected by the customs authorities and their appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Collector of Customs on the ground that the amended Ss. 14 and 15 of the Act were applicable to the consignments in question. The appellants filed revision applications before the Central Government, but they were dismissed by the aforesaid common impugned order dated Jan. 16, 1969. They have therefore approached this Court for a redress of their grievance.

3. The facts relating to Civil Appeal No. 2219 of 1969, are quite similar, except that the consignment in that case was of 63 cases of nylon yarn, which were stored in the warehouse on December 14, 1965, and were cleared on May 25, 1967. In that case also, the appellants paid the duty under the provisions of the amended sections under protest, and unsuccessfully applied for refund of the so-called excess duty. They failed in their appeals to the Appellate Collector of Customs and their application for revision was rejected by the Central Government on March 19, 1969.

4. It will thus appear that the controversy in these two sets of cases relates to the short question whether the customs authorities were justified in applying the rate of duty (to the imported goods in question) according to the rate prevalent on the date of their actual removal from the warehouse.

5. It will be recalled that the Customs (Amendment) Ordinance, 1966, was promulgated and came into force on July 7, 1966, and was replaced by the Customs (Amendment) Act, 1966. The amendments in question were by way of substitution of Ss. 14 and 15 of the Act by the new sections. It has been argued by Mr. Chitale for the appellants that the material change was that made in sub-sec. (1) of S. 15 of the Act by substituting the words the rate of duty, rate of exchange for the words the rate of duty. He has therefore argued that the customs authorities were not entitled to take the