Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
TRISHAKTI ELECTRON.& INDUSTRIES LTD.&ANR - Appellants
Vs.
TIL LTD. & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 1961-1962/2004
Decided on : 07-04-2015
Excise Duty - Obligation to Pay Import Duty - Court finds no merit in the appeals and dismisses them
Fact of the Case:
The appellant supplied cranes to ONGC for a project in Bangladesh. Respondent no.1 did not pay excise duty and executed a bond. Appellant paid import duty after the project was completed, claiming it was due to respondent no.1's failure to pay excise duty.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court concluded that the Excise Department rightly discharged the bond as respondent no.1 fulfilled its obligation. The appellant's arguments during the hearing were based on disputed questions of facts and were not consistent with the case set up in the writ petition.
Issues: Disputed questions of facts, inconsistency in the case set up in the writ petition, dismissal of civil suit filed by the appellant
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, as the appellant's arguments were inconsistent and based on disputed facts, and the civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed.
Final Decision: The appeals are dismissed.
ORDER :
1. We have gone through the judgment rendered by the Division bench of the Calcutta High Court and find ourselves in agreement with a view taken by the High Court in the said judgment. Suffice it to say that the appellant herein had supplied certain cranes on hiring basis to the ONGC for a project in Bangladesh. Those cranes were purchased by the appellant for respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 did not pay the excise duty and had executed a bond. On the other hand, custom duty was payable on re-import of the cranes after the project in Bangladesh was completed. This import duty the appellant has paid. The appellant claimed that it was forced to pay this import duty because of the reason that respondent no.1 did not pay the excise duty and had that excise duty been paid then they would not have any obligation to pay the import duty. Since the Excise Department had discharged the bond executed by respondent no.1, the appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta impleading Excise Department as well as respondent no.1 as parties. The High Court in the impugned judgment has concluded that insofar as the Excise Department is concerned it has rightly discharged the bond as respondent no.1 has fulfilled its obligation. We find that during the hearing many arguments are raised which are based on disputed questions of facts, some of which were not even pleaded in the writ petition. The case set up in the writ petition was entirely different from the one which is sought to be projected before us at the time of arguments which cannot be permitted.
2. We find that the High Court while allowing the appeal of respondent no.1 and dismissing the writ petition of the appellant had given an opportunity to the learned counsel to file civil suit. Civil Suit was in fact filed but the same was dismissed some time in the year 2011.
3. In these circumstances, we find no merit in these appeals and these are accordingly dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
