Court Upholds Government's Power to Withdraw Duty Exemption, Petition Dismissed

The Court dismissed the Petition challenging the levy of additional duty and the withdrawal of exemption from auxiliary duty. The Court held that the Government had the power to withdraw the exemption, citing precedents that exemptions are concessions revocable without violating promissory estoppel. The Court found no arbitrariness in the withdrawal and directed the Petitioners to pay duty at prevailing rates, renew their Bank Guarantee for interim relief, failing which would disadvantage them.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the levy of additional duty.
2. Challenge to three Notifications dated 16th November 1982.
3. Withdrawal of exemption from payment of auxiliary duty based on promissory estoppel.
4. Scrutiny of the withdrawal of exemption for being arbitrary and unreasonable.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Petitioners challenged the levy of additional duty, which was no longer valid due to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works v. Union of India. The focus then shifted to challenging three Notifications dated 16th November 1982.

2. The three Notifications under challenge were: (a) Notification No. 256 withdrawing earlier Notifications, (b) Notification No. 252 setting the duty rate on copper waste and scrap, and (c) Notification No. 254 withdrawing exemption from auxiliary duty. The challenge was primarily on the withdrawal of the exemption based on promissory estoppel.

3. The Court noted that the earlier exemption Notification did not have a fixed period, and thus, the Government had the power to withdraw it. The Court referenced the case law to establish that an exemption is a form of concession and can be revoked without violating promissory estoppel principles. The Court cited the Madras High Court's decision in M. Jamal Company v. Union of India to support this stance.

4. The Petitioners argued that the withdrawal of exemption was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights. They contended that the Government did not provide any justification for the withdrawal and that no change in circumstances warranted it. However, the Court found no substance in these arguments and held that the Government's actions were subject to judicial scrutiny but did not violate any fundamental rights.

5. The Court dismissed the Petition, emphasizing that the Petitioners must pay duty based on the prevailing rates at the time of importation. The Court also directed the Petitioners to renew the Bank Guarantee they had furnished for interim relief. Failure to renew the Bank Guarantee would put the Petitioners at a disadvantage, and the Court kept the Petition pending for this purpose until a specified date.

---