PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., is a public sector undertaking and wholly owned by the Government of India. The company has accumulated huge loss of Rs. 270 crores as stated in the petition.

(2.) The petitioner-company proposed to establish a plant to manufacture Phosphetic fertilizer and the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Fertilizer and Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development were invoked in the project. The project was approved and according to the petitioner-company, the project includes handling of unloading system of imported goods. The petitioner-company applied for registration of the project under project Import Regulation, which was registered.

(3.) The petitioner-company submitted the contract executed with M/s. Buhler Brothers Ltd., Switzerland for registration under the Project Import Regulation, 1986 for importing one mobile continuous ship unloader completely assembled' alongwith letter of the Ministry of Fertilizer, G.O.I., (the sponsoring authority) recommending the importation of the goods under project import. The contract was registered and the goods were subsequently imported and provisional assessment was made. Therefore, it was felt by the Assessing Authority that there was short levy of duty owing to erroneous assessment as the ship unloader was not an integral part of the project for manufacture of fertilizer and only used for speedy unloading of solid raw materials from ship. A demand notice dated 20-5-92 was issued asking the petitioner-company to show cause as to why the above item should not be re- assessed under the heading 8428.39 with basic duty of 40%. Cause was shown, it was heard and ultimately differential duty of Rs. 10,27,13,769/- was assessed and petitioner-company was directed to pay the amount. The first appellate authority confirmed the assessment order and now the appeal is pending before Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. A petition for stay was filed alongwith the appeal and by order dated 22-9-97, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 5 crores taking into consideration the financial hardship of petitioner-company. Subsequently, this Court was approached by filing a writ petition, and the petition was disposed of by order dated 17-4-1998 in OJC No. 17989 of 1997. The operative portion of the order runs as follows :-