REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

APAR PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WALLACE BROTHERS AND COMPANY LTD V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [REFERRED TO]
HARVEY V. CORPORATION OF LYME REGIS [REFERRED TO]
MERCY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD V. TWIGGE [REFERRED TO]
K JAMAL CO V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CANADA SUGAR REFINING COMPANY V. THE QUEEN [REFERRED TO]
MEUX V. JACOBS [REFERRED TO]
JAIN SHUDH VANASPATI LTD V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WILSON V. CHAMBERS & CO PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
NEW CHEMI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM TEXTILES LTD MADHURI V. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
CHATTURAM HORILRAM LTD,V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAMLINGA MILLS V. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS V. SC COUTINHO [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT COTTON AND SILK MILLS V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHAWHNEY V. SYLVANIA & LAXMAN [REFERRED TO]
HARDWARIMAL HARNATH DAS V. MUNICIPAL BOARD,DEHRADHUN [REFERRED TO]
KALWAS DEVADATTAM V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WALLACE BROTHERS & CO LTD V. COMMR OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
KESORAM INDUSTRIES & COTTON MILLS LTD V. CWT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. F N BALSARA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INDIA SPINNING AND WEAVING AND MANUFACTURING CO LIMITED EMPRESS MILLS NAGPUR VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE WARDHA [REFERRED TO]
VANGUARD FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED MADRAS VS. FRASER AND ROSS [REFERRED TO]
R C JALL PARSI VS. AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LTD [REFERRED TO]
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VS. SEA CUSTOM ACT 1878 [REFERRED TO]
SHINDE BROTHER VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RATCHUR [REFERRED TO]
N B SANJANA ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CEN TRAL EXCISE BOMBAY VS. ELPHINSTONE SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX MADRAS VS. GETTY CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. B SEN [REFERRED TO]
S K GUPTA VS. K P JAIN [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BOMBAY TYRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GRAMOPHONE COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. BIRENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KHALIL KACHERIM [REFERRED TO]
SHEWBUXRAI ONKARMALL VS. ASSTT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
NEK MOHAMMAD VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four question arising under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) are referred to the Full Bench and they are :---

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of these two writ petitions are stated in the order reference and we think it unnecessary to repeat the same. Suffice to note that on the dates when the question entered the "territorial waters of India "from the foreign country as also on the day they were stored in the bonded warehouse, they were wholly exempt from payment of basic customs duty under a notification issued by the Central Government (hereinafter referred to as "Exemption Notification") in exercise of its powers under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Customs Act"). But, by the time these goods were sought to be removed from the bonded warehouse, the Exemption Notification was rescinded and the exemption granted there-under was withdrawn. A Division Bench of this Court in (Shawhney v. Sylvania & Laxman) (hereinafter referred to as "Sylvania Laxmans case" 77 Bom.L.R. 380 after referring to the observations of their Lordship of the Privy Council in (Wallace Brother &Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax) 50 Bombay L.R. 482, which were referred to whit approval by the Supreme Court in (Kesoram Industrial & Cotton Mills Ltd. v. C.W.T.) 59 I.T.R. 767 held :

(3.) A later Division Bench of this Court in (Synthetics and Chemicals v. S.C. Coutinho) 1982 E.L.T. 414 (for short Synthetics and Chemicals, case) was dealing with a case of import of "disproportionated Resin Acid "which were chargeable to customs duty under Items No. 87 of the Customs Tariff Act at 60% ad valorem. The ship carrying these goods arrived at Bombay port on 20th August, 1968. On the same day the appellants presented a bill of entry for warehousing of these goods. After the formalities in that behalf were completed they were actually warehoused. The appellants claimed that on their representation the Government of India issued a notification dated 12th October, 1968 under section 25(1) exempting these goods from all such customs duty as was in excess pf 271/2%. In other words, customs duty leviable at 60% on Items No. 87 was reduced to 271/2%. The Court held that section 5(1)(b) applied to the facts of that case and that (page 417)

Click here to view full judgment.

APAR PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address