S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
A. B. P. Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. This civil appeal arises from a judgment,1[Dated December 23, 2008], in Writ Petition No 298/ 2004, of the Calcutta High Court which held the withdrawal of a customs notification invalid.
I
2. ABP Pvt Ltd (“assessee/respondent”) in October 2003, imported one set of high speed cold set (Universal 70) Web Offset printing machine along with the necessary parts and accessories and claimed exemption from payment of the duty relying upon the notification dated May 28, 2003 (hereinafter, “First Notification”). 2[ Notification No 86 of 2003 (Cus) Classification 844 311 00.] The First Notification provided for levy of custom duty on the import of High Speed Cold-Set Web Offset Rotary Printing Machines with a minimum speed of 70,000 copies per hour (hereafter, “Imported Machine”) at a concessional rate of 5 %. Relying upon the first notification, the assessee caused an irrevocable letter of credit,3[Dated 18th October, 2003], to be issued, for the purchase of the Imported Machine. This First Notification was subsequently amended by the Central Government through a fresh notification dated November 11, 2003,4[Notification No 164 of 2003],(hereafter, “Amended Not
Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd v. CTO (2004) Supp 6 SCR 264 [Para 15]
Dai-ichi Karkaria Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 2 SCR 287 [Para 6]
Kasinka Trading & Anr. v. Union of India (1994) Supp4 SCR 448 [Para 12]
M.M Nagalingam Nadar Sons v. State of Kerela (1993) 91 STC 61 [Para 24]
Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2006) 2 SCR 1172 [Para 25]
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
MRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (2006) Supp6 SCR 417 [Para 14]
Prashanti Medical Services & Research Foundation v. Union of India (2019) 9 SCR 828 [Para 26]
Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 398 [Para 15]
Vivek Narayan Sharma (Demonetisation Case-5 J.) v. Union of India 2023 (1) SCR 1 [Para 28]
Every action of the executive government, including exercise of its power to grant or withdraw tax exemption, should be suffused with public interest. The government must provide relevant and suffici....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel, and Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in protecting the ....
Section 3(B)(b) of Act enables levy of electricity duty upon cancellation of exemption.
The State can withdraw exemptions from electricity duty but must provide reasonable notice to affected captive power generators to allow adjustment.
The revocation of anti-dumping duty was illegal due to failure to follow mandatory review procedures, emphasizing the necessity of conducting a proper evaluation before such actions.
The court affirmed that strict adherence to exemption conditions under the Customs Act is crucial, and mere documentation without actual value addition does not suffice to qualify for duty exemptions....
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.