1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Government which, on transfer, is being treated as an Appeal. The appellants cleared fertilizer shipment of Ammonium Nitrate Phosphate by ex s.s. Jag Rekha under B/E GSI No. 150 dated 12-7-1973. The ship arrived during the month of June, 1983. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Department, Bombay, assessed duty under I.C.T. Item No. 28 at 60% basic custom duty+10% auxiliary duty+15% C.V. duty amounting to Rs. 1,22,44,062.64 on the total value of Rs. 1,28,21,008.

2. The appellants later contended that the Customs authorities have wrongly assessed the duty on the consignment and, therefore, the appellants were entitled for refund. A claim was preferred on 12-11-1973 to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, for refund contending that the subject consignment was exempted from payment of 60% basic duty vide Ministry of Finance Notification No. 1.15-Customs , dated 11-8-1973 (File No. 355/1l/72-Customs-I) dated 11-8-1973. The appellants claimed the refund of Rs. 88,46,495.52. On 14-8-1974, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, rejected the refund claim on the ground that it was premature. The refund claim was again lodged on 27-11-1974 by the appellants. The Assistant Collector, at that stage, passed an order on 30-1-1975 rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the duty was paid in August 1973 and the refund application was filed on 28-11-1974 and hence it was barred by time. Against that order, an appeal was filed with the Appellate Collector, Customs, Bombay. The Appellate Collector of Customs, in his order No. 3/49-216/75 dated nil (despatched on 17-9-1975) set aside the order appealed against and directed that the case may be examined de novo. The Assistant Collector of Customs, held on 24-8-1976 (in the de novo enquiry) that the Notification No. 115/73 was issued on 11-8-1973 whereas the final entry was on 30-6-1973. He held that the notification was not applicable to the goods and rejected the claim as untenable. The appellants again filed an Appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs, stating that a separate Exemption Order was issued by the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, and produced copy of the Exemption Order No. 408 dated 26-7-1973 issued from File No. 458/17/73-Customs V. The appellants contended that the exempted Ammonium Nitrate Phosphate was shipped in the vessel listed in the Exemption Order. On 7-2-1977, orders were passed dismissing the claim as the Bill of Entry had not been finalised and directing the Assistant Collector to examine the claim de novo. The appellants lodged their claim after the the finalisation of the Bill of Entry on 18-7-1977. "That was rejected by Assistant Collector of Customs, with a printed slip (No. S/3-382/77 GS dated nil but reportedly received by F.C.I, on 2-5-1978). On appeal, the Appellate Collector rejected the same on the basis that a copy of the order-in-original was not produced. The appellants have, therefore, come forward with the present appeal.

3. Shri D.N. Mehta, Consultant, appearing for the appellants narrated the hardship caused to the appellants being driven from pillar to post, even though the ad hoc Exemption Order was squarely applicable to their case. He also referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Company Ltd. (I.T.C. Limited] v. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petitions Nos. 3025 and 3026 of 1978) wherein His Lordship Mr. Justice Padmanabhan, had held that Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, had not put any restriction on the Central Government as to the time at which it should grant exemption. It is observed that exemption could be granted under circumstances of an exceptional nature even before a levy is made or after the levy, but before the recovery of the amount. Even in a case where customs duty has been collected, it will certainly be open to the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 25(2) to grant exemption an