UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) Special leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

(3.) By Notification No. GSR 1152 dated 24/7/1967 issued under Section 25 (1 of the Customs Act, the government exempted iron ore fines fallingunder Item 29 of the Second Schedule to the Tariff Act when exported out of India from so much of the duty leviable thereon as is in excess of Rs. 3. 00. 00 per metric ton, where the iron content in the iron ore fines was below 62% and where it exceeds 62% so much of the duty as is in excess of Rs. 4. 00 per metric ton. By another Notification dated 31/8/1968 the government exempted lumpy iron ore falling under Item 28 of the Second Schedule to the Tariff Act when exported out of India from so much of the duty as was in excess of the duty shown in Column (iii) depending on the iron content in the iron ore. It may be mentioned here that the duty had to be determined on the basis of weight of the commodity at the relevant point of time. In the case of lumpy iron ore where the percentage of iron was 60% or more but less than 63% the duty was restricted to Rs. 6. 00 per metric ton, where it was 58% or more but less than 60% it was restricted to Rs. 5. 00 per metric ton and where it was less than 58% it was restricted to Rs. 4. 00 00 per metric ton. It will thus be seen that under both the notifications referred to above the duty was relatable to weight depending on the iron content in the ore or the ore fines. The question which was posed before the High court was whether the percentage of iron content had to be determined after ignoring moisture in the lump or the percentage had to be determined taking all the impurities including moisture into account. The Revenue opted for the first method whereas the assessees contended that the percentage had to be determined taking all the impurities including moisture into account. The learned Single Judge in the High court ruled in favour of the assessee and the division bench agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and hence these appeals.