SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, CJI., V. KHALID, M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Coromondal Fertilisers Limited, Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Madras, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 1984
Decided on 22-7-1986.
Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130E(b), 25 - Affirmed order – Appeal against order - Appellant carries on business of manufacture of chemical fertilisers and, for that purpose, appellant requires Mono-Ammonium Phosphate which, it is said, is not manufactured in India. At the material time an importer of Mono-Ammonium Phosphate was liable to pay customs duty as per sub-item 3 of Item of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Rate of duty that was applicable to Mono-Ammonium Phosphate was 60% ad valorem. In addition, an Auxiliary duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem was also applicable at relevant time - Held, Some decisions were relied upon by both parties in support of their respective contentions but we do not think that, in view of the order which propose to pass, it is necessary to refer to said decisions - Court set aside the impugned order of Appellate Tribunal and send the case back to it with a direction to decide whether or not in the process of manufacture of complex fertilisers by the mixture of Mono-Ammonium Phosphate, Urea and Muriate of Potash, a new chemical compound comes into existence or, in other words, whether Mono-Ammonium Phosphate loses its physical and chemical properties in the complex fertiliser which is ultimately produced - Court make it clear that the Central Government will be at liberty to issue a clarification to the effect that Notification was applicable to consignment imported by appellant for use as an intermediate in the production of complex fertilisers which would be used as manure in terms of paragraph 4 of the bond - Appeal is disposed
JUDGMENT
DUTT, J.:— This appeal has been preferred-by the appellant, Coromondal Fertilisers Limited, under S. 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and is directed against the order dated April 11, 1984 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal. By the said order the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order dated July 1, 1982 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, upholding the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated February 20, 1980, confirming the demand for Rs. 60,34,419.56 raised on the appellant.
2. The appellant carries on the business of manufacture of chemical fertilisers and, for that purpose, the appellant requires Mono-Ammonium Phosphate which, it is said, is not manufactured in India. At the material time an importer of Mono-Ammonium Phosphate was liable to pay customs duty as per sub-item 3 of Item 31.02/05 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The rate of duty that was applicable to Mono-Ammonium Phosphate was 60% ad valorem. In addition, an Auxiliary duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem was also applicable at the relevant time.
3. The Central Government issued a Notification No. 178/76-Cus dated 2-8-1976 as follows :-
"G. S. R. 547(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of S. 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts Ammonium Phosphate falling within Chapter 31 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India for use as manure, from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule :
Provided that in respect of any consignment of ammonium phosphate imported under cover of a claim for exemption from duty in pursuance of the provisions hereof, the importer shall execute a bond in such form as may be prescribed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, binding himself, in sum equal to the amount of duty ordinarily leviable on such articles, to pay on demand the duty leviable on such quantity thereof as is not proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to have been used as manure."
4. It appears from Notification No. 178/76-Cus that the whole of the duty of customs leviable on Ammonium Phosphate was exempted when the same was imported into India for use as manure. Pursuant to the exemption, the rate of auxiliary duty of customs was reduced to 5% ad valorem.
5. On May 14,1975, the appellant wrote a letter to the Deputy Collector of Customs informing him that the appellant had to urgently import 5000 M.T. to 6000 M.T. of Mono-Ammonium Phosphate for use as a raw material for the production of complex fertilisers. In the said letter, it was also stated by the appellant that according to its understanding of the Customs Tariff Act and the said Notification No. 178/76-Cus dated 2-8-1976, Mono-Ammonium Phosphate used in the production of complex fertilisers, which in turn could be used as manure, was exempt from the basic customs duty as well as auxiliary duty. The appellant requested the Deputy Collector of Customs to confirm the said understanding of the appellant at an early date. The said letter of the appellant was replied to by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam, by his letter dated May 19, 1979, in which it was stated, inter alia, that under the said Notification No. 178/76-Cus dated 2-8-1976, only customs duty was exempted, provided a bond in the prescribed form was executed to the effect that the goods were for. use as manure. It may be stated that there is nothing in the said letter of the Assistant Collector of Customs confirming the said understanding of the appellant that Mono-Ammonium Phosphate used in the production of complex fertilisers was exempt from the basic customs duty as well as auxiliary duty. In effect, the Assistant Collector of Customs only reiterat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.