Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VICTORY PLASTICS PVT.LTD. & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/02/1996
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
SEN, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (2)697
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the
Bombay High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the
respondent. The writ petition was directed against the order
of the Assistant Collector, Customs rejecting a refund
application filed by the respondent.
The respondent had imported P.V.C. resin which is
liable to payment of duty under tariff item No. 39.01/96 of
the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The
Central Government had, however, issued an exemption
notification providing that P.V.C. resin falling under
Chapter 39 when imported into India shall be exempt from the
whole of the duty of customs leviable thereupon. This
notification dated March 15, 1979 stated that it shall
remain in operation till March 31, 1981. On October 16,
1980, however, the said notification was modified by another
notification limiting the exemption to the duty in excess of
forty percent ad valorem. The respondent, it is not in
dispute, opened the letters of credit only on November 20,
1980, i.e., after the issuance of the notification dated
October 16, 1980. The import was much later. Even so, they
contended that they should get the benefit of full exemption
of duty as provided by the first notification dated March
15, 1979 and that the notification dated October 16, 1980
cannot be applied to him. This contention was rejected by
the Assistant Collector but the High court has upheld the
same.
An identical dispute has been pronounced upon by this
Court in Kasinka Trading & Anr. etc. v. Union India & Anr.
[J.T.1994 (7) 362]. The said decision deals with these very
notifications. Indeed, that was a case where the appellant
had placed orders for the import of P.V.C. resin before the
issuance of notification dated October 16, 1980. Even so, it
was held that he cannot plead promissory estoppel nor can he
claim full exemption under notification dated March 15, 1979
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
ignoring the later notification. The case before us is a
clearer one in the sense that the opening of letters of
credit and the transaction was entered into after the
issuance of the notification dated October 16, 1980.
Following the said decision - and also having regard to the
aforementioned factual position - this appeal is allowed.
The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
No costs.