Telangana High Court
Sri C. Krishna Prasad, vs Union Of India on 2 January, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
W.P.No.4542 of 2002
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
Heard Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. M V J K Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for CEC
SER Tax, appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIT and customs, appearing
for respondent No.3. Perused the entire record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance
of a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Notification
No.183/93, dated 25.11.1993 and the consequential order of 4th
respondent in Order-in-Original F.No.S/21/1/94 - ICD,
F.No.S/21/2/94 - ICD, F.No.S/21/3/94 - ICD, dated 12.02.1998
levying customs duty, further also, the order of 3rd respondent
dismissing the appeal No.6/2002 (H-II) CUS, dated 28.02.2002, to
be illegal.
3. The brief facts of the case which lead to the filing of the
present writ petition is that the petitioner who was otherwise
involved in the business of manufacturer and sale of life saving
drugs had imported a chemical by name "Acetic Anhydride", under
three bills of Entry bearing Nos.290, 291 and 300, dated 2
01.12.1993, 01.12.1993 and 14.12.1993 respectively. The
petitioner had imported the said consignment invoking Notification
Nos.203/1992 and 204/1992, dated 19.05.1992 which exempted
the payment of customs duty on "Acetic Anhydride". The petitioner
had ordered for six consignments and also obtained advance
license under the Advance License Scheme for importing the same.
Of the six consignments, three of the consignments got exempted
from payment of customs duty vide order of the Union of India.
However, three of the consignments, the Government had imposed
customs duty in spite of the Notification Nos.203/1992 and
204/1992, dated 19.05.1992 being in force. The Department
demanded customs duty in the context of the Notification
No.183/1993, dated 25.11.1993 by which the exemption earlier
granted, had been withdrawn. The said order of levying customs
duty was subjected to challenge in an appeal which too stood
rejected leading to the filing of present writ petition.
4. The petitioner had initially filed a writ petition vide
W.P.No.8937 of 2001, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 07.12.2016 had dismissed the same. The order of
the Division Bench was subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No(s).593-594 of 2020 in
SLP(Civil) No(s).30371-30372 of 2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
finally decided the said appeals vide judgment dated 23.01.2020 3
allowing the said SLPs of the petitioner and setting aside the order
of the High Court so also the order passed by the Department
rejecting the exemption claimed by the petitioner.
5. Holding that the order of importing "Acetic Anhydride" in six
consignments was while the Notification Nos.203/1992 and
204/1992, dated 19.05.1992 were in force, they could not had
been denied the exemption. In the instant writ petition also, the
Department rejected to grant exemption vide order dated
12.02.1998 against which the petitioner had preferred the appeal
before respondent No.3 and the appeal also stood rejected on
28.02.2002 leading to filing the present writ petition.
6. In the teeth of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of the petitioner itself reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 71,
where the impugned orders had been set aside, we are of the
considered opinion that the two impugned orders in the present
writ petition, i.e., the order dated 12.02.1998 passed by
respondent No.4 and also the order of respondent No.3 in
dismissing the appeal dated 28.02.2002, would also be not
sustainable any longer.
7. The Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be and is accordingly
allowed. The two impugned orders stands set aside/quashed. The
Petitioner in terms of the Notification Nos.203/1992 and 4
204/1992, dated 19.05.1992, would be entitled for the exemption
from payment of customs duty. As a consequence of the present
writ petition being allowed, any amount of customs duty which
stands recovered by the Department even it is by way of
encashment of bank guarantee, the petitioner would be entitled for
refund of the same, for which the petitioner may approach the
respondents in accordance with law for the refund of the same.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J
__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Dated: 02.01.2024 Pvt
