BOMBAY CONDUCTORS AND ELECTRICALS LIMITED Vs. K CHANDRAMOULI UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are 13 writ petitions. They can be divided into two sets. The first sei of 7 writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos.3416 of 1982, 3464 of 1982,3465 of 1982, 3700 of 1982, 3701 of 1982, 3820 of 1982and 3648 of 1982) raises the question of the validity of thenotification dated 28-2-1982. By virtue of the notificationNo. 151\77-Cus. dated 15-7-1977 there was no duty ofcustoms on the melting scrap. By notification No. 35j82-Cus.F. No. BLD(Cus) 82 dated 28-2-1982 the exemption waswithdrawn with respect to the melting scrap of stainless steel.The effect of withdrawal of exemption was that the petitionersin these seven cases became liable to pay duty at the rateof 40 per cent ad valorem on the melting scrap of stainlesssteel. The petitioners impugn the notification dated 28-2-82by which the exemption granted in 1977 was withdrawn. Ithas to be noticed here that the notificatoin of 15-7-1977 wasnot a time-bound notification because it did not specify anytime limit during which the exemption granted by it wouldbe available to the importers.

(2.) The other set of six writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 129511980, 1289 of 1980, 123211980, 1233 of 1980, 1234 of1980 and 1235 of 1980) raises the question of the validityof the time-bound notification. The exemption from customsduty was granted for a fixed time and before the expiry ofthe time it was withdrawn.

(3.) The arguments addressed to us on both these setswere the same. It is not disputed that if the challenge to thewithdrawal of time-bound notification fails, the petitioners incases in which there was no time-bound notification cannotsucceed. To test the validity of the arguments it will beconvenient to take a case of a time-bound exemption notification.