(March 3, 1983) 1983 (TLS)105549

1983-ILR (Del)-1-487 :: 1984-ITR-145-272

BOMBAY CONDUCTORS AND ELECTRICALS LIMITED Vs. K. CHANDRAMOULI, UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI, J

( 1 ) THESE are 13 writ petitions. They can be divided into two sets. The first sei of 7 writ petitions (C. W. P. Nos. 3416 of 1982, 3464 of 1982,3465 of 1982, 3700 of 1982, 3701 of 1982, 3820 of 1982and 3648 of 1982) raises the question of the validity of thenotification dated 28-2-1982. By virtue of the notificationno. 151\77-Cus. dated 15-7-1977 there was no duty ofcustoms on the melting scrap. By notification No. 35j82-Cus. F. No. BLD (Cus) 82 dated 28-2-1982 the exemption waswithdrawn with respect to the melting scrap of stainless steel. The effect of withdrawal of exemption was that the petitionersin these seven cases became liable to pay duty at the rateof 40 per cent ad valorem on the melting scrap of stainlesssteel. The petitioners impugn the notification dated 28-2-82by which the exemption granted in 1977 was withdrawn. Ithas to be noticed here that the notificatoin of 15-7-1977 wasnot a time-bound notification because it did not specify anytime limit during which the exemption granted by it wouldbe available to the importers.

( 2 ) THE other set of six writ petitions (C. W. P. Nos. 129511980, 1289 of 1980, 123211980, 1233 of 1980, 1234 of1980 and 1235 of 1980) raises the question of the validityof the time-bound notification. The exemption from customsduty was granted for a fixed time and before the expiry ofthe time it was withdrawn.

( 3 ) THE arguments addressed to us on both these setswere the same. It is not disputed that if the challenge to thewithdrawal of time-bound notification fails, the petitioners incases in which there was no time-bound notification cannotsucceed. To test the validity of the arguments it will beconvenient to take a case of a time-bound exemption notification.

( 4 ) THE petitioners in C. W. P. No. 1295 of 1980, whichwe take as a representative case, are engaged in the production of aluminium conductors and aluminium conductorssteel reinforced. They have been supplying conductors manufactured by them to various public sector undertakings. Aluminium ingots and rods are basic raw materials for the production of these conductors. This raw material, for sometimepast, was in acute short supply. The indigenous supply wasinsufficient to meet the domestic requirements. So the Government of India decided to import aluminium. To ensureparity of prices between the indigenous product and importedaluminium the Central Government decided to exempt theimported aluminium from payment of customs duty andadditoinal duty.

( 5 ) BY a notification dated 18-4-1980 the Central Government exempted in public interest aluminium ingots and aluminium rods from payment of any duty of customs andadditional duty with effect from 18-4-1980 to 30-9-1980. This was a time-bound exemption notification. This notification read as follows :"government OF INDIAMINISTRY OF FINANCEDEPARTMENT OF REVENUENew Delhi, the 18/04/1980notificationcustomsg. S. R. 213 (E) in exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act. 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied thatit is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exemptsaluminium wire rods or aluminium ingots falling withinchapter 76 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act,1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India, from (i) the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereonunder the First Schedule to the said Customs Tariffact; and (ii) the whole of the additional duty leviable thereonunder section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act. 2. This notification shall be in force upto and inclusiveof the 30/09/1980. Sdk. CHANDRAMOULI, Under Secy. to the Govt. of India. "

( 6 ) SIMULTANEOUSLY by another notification dated 18-4-80the Central Government in public interest notified that importof aluminium rods and aluminiu