KRISHNA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to declare the communication F. No. 605/124/2000-DBK dated 2-9-2002 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India as contrary to the common orders of this Court dated 6-6-2002 in W. P. No. 25534 of 1999 and batch and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to grant exemption to the imported Acetic Anhydride and pass such other orders as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE controversy in this writ petition is with regard to the non-extending of benefits to the imports covered under Advance License scheme. According to the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was importing Acetic Anhydride and using it in the manufacture of final goods and exporting the said goods. Since the petitioner was covered under the Advance License scheme, the imports were exempted from payment of customs duty. While, so the Government of India issued Notification dated 25-11-1993 in Notification No. 183/93-Cus. withdrawing the exemption which was available to the petitioner in so far as payment of customs duty. Later, vide clarificatory Notification No. 105/94-Cus. , dated 18-3-1994, it was clarified by the respondents that the transactions covered under Advance License Scheme are not effected. While clearing for home consumption, the department permitted the clearance of the consignments dated 3-12-1993 and 18-12-1993 vide Bill of Entry 293 and 305 respectively but detained the third consignment dated 31-12-1993 vide Bill of Entry 314, but however, after clarificatory notification the said consignment was also cleared. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued two demand notices dated 20-1-1994 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,53,391/- and 11,64,078/- towards customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the said demand notices, two appeals were filed before the Appellate Commissioner. As detention order was passed by the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition and obtained interim orders dated 26-3-1998 against the Customs Department. During the pendency of the appeals the petitioner made correspondence with the 1st respondent with regard to the exemption to the three consignments, but exemption was granted to the third consignment alone omitting the first two consignments, which should have been granted exemption automatically. In the meanwhile, the Appellate Commissioner confirmed the demand notices issued by the 4th respondent by his order dated 4-3-1999, which was carried in further appeals before CEGAT. During the hearing before the CEGAT, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the later notification dated 18-3-1994 was clarificatory in nature and that the petitioner was entitled to relief on grounds of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, the Tribunal seems to have held that the matter could be decided by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the appeals were permitted to withdrawn with liberty to challenge the orders before the High Court. Consequently, two Writ Petitions 25534 of 1999 and 25535 of 1999 were filed in this Court. Pending the writ petitions, the 1st respondent issued a letter dated 26-6-2000 intimating the petitioner that exemption will not be granted for the first two consignments. Aggrieved by the said intimation, another writ petition in W. P. No. 13888 of 2000 was filed. All these three writ petitions fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench by a common order dated 20-6-2002 set aside the order of the 1st respondent and directed the respondents to pass a detailed order giving reasons. The respondents by communication dated 2-9-2002 rejected the request of granting exemption in respect of the two consignments. This communication of the 1st Respondent dated 2-9-2002 is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) SRI M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner primarily contended that the petitioner is holder of an Advance License for duty free imports of raw materials to be used in the exported goods and that as a result of Notification No. 183 of 1993, dated 25-11-1993, the exemption which was available to the petitioner was withdrawn. It is further contended that the said withdrawal was questioned before the appropriate authorities and ultimately writ petition was also filed, but however, the respondents issued a clarification vide Notification No. 105 of 1994 dated 18-3-1994 clarifying that the transactions covered under Advance License are not effected and that the consignment relating to Bill of Entry 293 and 305 dated 3-12-1993 and 18-12-1993 respectively were allowed to be cleared without payment of customs duty as per the Advance License Scheme, but however, the clearance for the third consignment dated 31-12-1993 was denied and that as the petitioner made representations to the appropriate Ministry the third consignment was also exempted. It is further contended that as the department communicated a demand notice to levy customs duty on two consignments dated 3-12-1993 and 18-12-1993, W. P. Nos. 25534 of 1999 and 25535 of 1999 were filed and that another order which was passed by the respondents on 26-6-2000 was also questioned in W. P. No. 13888 of 2000 in this Hon'ble and this Court after hearing all the three writ petitions together directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders. It is further submitted that the respondent passed the order impugned in this writ petition, but no reasons were given. As such, it is contended that the respondents have not acted as per the directions of the High Court and therefore seeks appropriate directions from this Court.