TRISLIALA SHOES PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the pclitioncr seeks the quashing of the order of second respondent as affirmed by respondents 2 and 3 and seeks further a writ of mandamus directing them to grant refund sought by the petitioner earlier from them.

(2.) the pclilioncr carries on business of manufacturing and sale of poly vinyl chloride footwear having the manufacturing unit at rajajinagar, Bangalore. For this purpose the petitioner requires poly vinyl chloride resin. The petitioner used to import the same from foreign countries such as singapore, korea and u.s.a.

(3.) by a notification dated 15th march, 1979 the government of India exempted the whole of the basic duly on the import of this material. This notification was in force upto 31st august, 1979. By another notification of the said date the exemption was extended upto 31st march, 1980, which was again extended upto 31st march, 1981. Thus, according to the pclitioncr the whole of the import duly on the goods in qucslion was ex empted upto 31sl march, 1981. During this period the pclitioncr cnlcred into a contract with an american company on 9th July,, 1980 as well as on 16th July, 1980 for supply of the said goods to the petitioner, for which purpose the pclilioncr opened idlers of credit through state bank of India, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The goods arrived in India during November and december, 1980. The customs department demanded duly thereon purporting to relied upon a notification dated 16lh october, 1980 (Annexure-D). As per this notification the earlier notifications were superseded, on the central government being satisfied that it was necessary in the public interest so to do and exempted the goods in question when imported into India from so much of the duty of customs as in excess of 40% advatorcm. The result is the import duty payable was 60% of the prescribed rale. The petitioner paid the same under protest and cleared the goods. Thereafter the petitioner ap plied for refund of the two sums of Rs. 92,61/- 31/- and Rs. 99,570-32/-. The refund applica tions were rejected and have thus become the subject matter of this writ petition.