2010 (7) TMI 1148 - HC - Customs

Court affirms customs duty benefit extension for company, rectifying discriminatory notification error.

Union of India Versus Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd.

The court upheld the Single Judge's decision to extend the benefit of a customs duty notification to a company manufacturing hot-rolled coils and plates ... - Issues Involved: The issue involves the extension of benefits of a customs duty notification to a company manufacturing hot-rolled coils and plates, the challenge of discriminatory treatment, and the retrospective application of the notification.Extension of Benefit of Notification:The Union of India appealed against a judgment extending the benefit of a customs duty notification to the respondents, despite a previous notification conferring similar benefits. The company imported metcoke between two notification dates and challenged the initial notification as arbitrary and discriminatory. The Single Judge directed authorities to consider exemption, but the benefit was not extended until a second notification. The Single Judge found the failure to extend the benefit discriminatory and ordered its extension from the initial notification date.Strict Construction of Notifications:The appellant argued that notifications granting exemptions must be strictly construed and benefits should not be extended beyond those included. They contended that if a notification is discriminatory, the court should quash it without extending benefits to petitioners. The appellant highlighted differences in manufacturing processes to justify the initial exclusion of the company from the benefit.Discrimination and Benefit Extension:The respondents supported the judgment, stating that if a notification is challenged for discrimination, the court should determine legality and quash it without extending benefits. They emphasized that in this case, once the benefit was extended to the company, discrimination ceased as both manufacturers belonged to the same class. The mistake in the initial notification was acknowledged, and the benefit was later extended to rectify the error.Retrospective Application of Notification:The court noted that the mistake in the initial notification led to the exclusion of the company, which was rectified in a subsequent notification. The court held that once the mistake was rectified, the company should receive the exemption from the initial notification date. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's decision.Refund Application and Order:The respondents were permitted to file a refund application within four weeks due to the duty already paid. The court directed authorities to process the refund application promptly after its submission. No costs were awarded in the matter.