Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 580
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN B. LOKUR, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
Amin Merchant – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Revenue & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4676-4677 of 2013
Decided On : 22-07-2016
IMPORTANT POINTS
Rates prescribed in Finance Act cannot be challenged on the basis of Budget proposals in speech of the Finance Minister.
The dispute as regards categorization of a commodity should be raised before appropriate forum. Court cannot undertake the exercise.
Discrimination has to be shown. Mere allegation is not enough.
When main relief is not granted, question of granting ancillary relief does not arise.
Headnote:(a) Administrative law – Budget proposals and Finance Act – Are two different things – Finance Act as duly passed by Parliament is the intention of the Legislature – Not amenable to judicial review – Rates prescribed in Finance Act cannot be challenged on the basis of Budget proposals in speech of the Finance Minister. (Para 31)
(1993) 65 ELT 465 (SC) – Referred
(b) Customs Act, 1962 – Section 25 – Power of Central Government to issue exemption notifications – Not at whims and fancy of Government – Any such notification has to be approved by Parliament u/s 159 – Such notifications show legislative intent – Contention that non-issue of notification in appellant’s case is mala fide or discriminatory – Rejected. (Para 32)
(2006) 150 TAXMAN, 591 (SC); 1993(68) ELT 9 (SC); AIR 1952 SC 115 – Referred
(c) Custom Tariff Act, 1975 – Heading 2208.10 – Whether the compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for manufacturing of beverages fall under the category of alcoholic beverages – The dispute should be raised before appropriate forum – Court cannot undertake the exercise. (Para 33)
1991 (53) ELT 65 (Bom.) – Distinguished
2003 (154) ELT 610 (Tri.Del.); 2003 (154) ELT 610 (Tri.Del.); 1998(97) ELT 404 SC – Referred
(d) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Discrimination – Appellant alleging that Government issued notifications u/s 25(1), Custom Tariff Act in respect of many items but discriminately not in respect of commodities falling under category 2208.10 – Not supported by any material – Contention rejected. (Para 34)
(e) Administration of justice – Ancillary relief – When main relief is not granted, question of granting ancillary relief does not arise. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
The appellant imported eight consignments of goods falling under Tariff Sub-Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff, namely, “Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages” during the financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95.
The customs authorities assessed the goods imported provisionally and subjected them to a prescribed rate of duty of Rs.300/- per liter or 400% whichever is higher specified in respect of Sub-Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff for 1993-94 and 1994-95.
The appellant claims to have deposited the amount of duty provisionally assessed on the assessable value declared in the eight bills of entry. According to the appellant, he cleared the goods for home consumption during financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95.
Between the years 1994 and 2001 the appellant addressed several communications, inter alia, to the Central Board of Excise and Customs and to the Tariff Research Unit (TRU) of the Union Ministry of Finance. The grievance of the appellant is that the rate which has been prescribed for goods falling under Tariff Sub-Heading 2208.10 is higher than that was authorized in the Budget Proposals during financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95.
The appellant tried to procure relevant information from the concerned authorities under RTI. The authorities have not furnished the relevant information.
The appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court which was dismissed. The review petition was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Contentions of the appellant are not sustainable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N.V. Ramana, J.
1. These appeals, by special leave, have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2011 in Writ Petition No.1761 of 2009 and order dated 24.11.2011 in Review Petition No.24 of 2011 in Writ Petition No.1761 of 2009 respectively, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by which the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein and also dismissed the Review Petition by holding that no error apparent on record has been made out.
2. The facts leading to these appeals, in brief, are that the appellant imported eight consignments of goods falling under Tariff Sub-Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff, namely, “Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages” during the financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The customs authorities assessed the goods imported provisionally and subjected them to a prescribed rate of duty of Rs.300/- per liter or 400% whichever is higher specified in respect of Sub-Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff for 1993-94 and 1994-95. The appellant claims to have deposited the amount of duty provisionally assessed on the assessable value declared in the eight bills of entry. According to the appellant, he cleared the goods for home consumption during financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Between the years 1994 and 2001 the appellant addressed several communications, inter alia, to the Central Board of Excise and Customs and to the Tariff Research Unit (TRU) of the Union Ministry of Finance. The grievance of the appellant is that the rate which has been prescribed for goods falling under Tariff Sub-Heading 2208.10 is higher than that was authorized in the Budget Proposals during financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The appellant took recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act in order to procure relevant information from the concerned authorities. According to the appellant, the authorities have not furnished the relevant information.
3. Not satisfied with the attitude of the authorities, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking the following reliefs:
(a) a writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents herein to issue a notification u/s.25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’) in order to exempt goods falling under Tariff Sub-Heading 2208.10 so as to give effect to the Budget proposal announced by the Finance Minister (FM) in Parliament for financial years l993-94 and 1994-95;
(b) a direction to the Chief Commissioner of Customs to finalize assessment of the eight bills of entry after a notification is issued by the first and second respondents u/s.25(1) of the Act;
(c) a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue a notification u/s.25(2) of the Act for granting exemption from customs duty for goods falling under Tariff Sub-Heading 2208.10 for financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95;
(d) an order for refund after assessments are finalized and
(e) an order for the payment of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the refund that is ordered.
4. The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2011. Being dissatisfied with the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant preferred a Review Petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2011.
5. Heard the appellant, appearing in person, and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
6. The appellant, appearing in person, vehemently submits that the budget proposals for 1993-94 stipulated, inter alia, a reduction in effective rate of import duty on items which had then attracted a rate of duty higher than 85%, to 85% advalorem, except on dried grapes, almonds, alcoholic beverages, ball and roller bearings and passenger baggage; the Budget proposals for 1994-95 similarly contemplated a reduction i
