UNION OF INDIA Vs. YOKOGAWA BLUESTAR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India and four other officials of the Union of india have-filed this appeal aggrieved by the order passed in WP no. 33537/94 dated 2. 8. 99.

(2.) FACTS:the Government of India, in exercise of its power under Section 3-A of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 notified an export and import policy and was made effective from 1. 4. 92 for a period of five Years. The said policy provided for importing capital goods by companies with a licence issued under EPCG (Export promotion capital Goods Scheme) at a concessional rate of customs duty subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The petitioner acting on the policy imported capital goods after obtaining a licence under the scheme at a concessional rate of 25% of CIF value subject to an undertaking of export obligation to be fulfilled by the petitioner to the extent of 3 times the CIF value within a period of four years. Petitioner placed purchase orders in terms of the policy for procuring the capital goods to be used exclusively for fulfilling the export obligation in April 1992. The Government Permited the petitioner to import the goods. The said license was given in terms of the policy. The petitioner thereafter cleared the said capita! goods by filing bills of entry by clering the said goods in terms of the Act on various dates. The Customs Authorities allowed the benefit of said concession and cleared the capital goods at a concessional rate of duty in terms of their applications.

(3.) LATER the respondents in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 25 of the Customs Act also issued a notification 307/92 on 28. 12. 92 in consonance with the export import policy of Government of India. These being the facts of the case later on 7. 9. 93 a show cause notice came to be issued calling upon the Petitioner to answer short levy in the matter of excise duty on account of existing benefit of notification by the respondent. Petitioner submitted a reply and thereafter a personal hearing was granted and an order came to be passed against the petitioner by respondent 3 on 25. 1. 94. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate authority also rejected the appeal on 6. 9. 94. Petitioner in these circumstances filed a Writ Petition before this Court in WP No. 33537/ 94 seeking for several prayers including a direction to the respondent directing them to value and accept 15% CAF value in terms of the policy.