TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (2) TMI 298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 12-10-1983 under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act granting exemption from customs duty, auxiliary duty and additional duty. This order was to be valid upto, and inclusive of, 31-3-1984. 2.  The appellants, who paid the duty earlier, made an application for refund on the basis of the Exemption Order. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the same on the ground that the Exemption Order No. 191 was issued subsequent to the importation of the goods and payment of duty thereon. While doing so, the Assistant Collector observed that the exemption under the authority of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, is, in fact, a post-facto exemption applicable only to subsequent importation of goods. (The Assistant co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the appellants, appearing with Miss Radha Rangaswamy, reiterated his arguments and took the Bench through the facts of the matter. He cited the following case law in support of his argument that even though the Exemption Order was issued after the importation of the goods and of payment of customs duty thereon, it is a valid order and refund should be granted :- (1) C.C. Rajkot v. Cotton Corporation of India [1986 (7) ECR 54] = 1986 (25) E.L.T. 327; (2) Food Corporation of India v. C.C. Bombay [1985 (21) E.L.T. 128]; (3) Dr. Hari Vishnu Pophale v. Union of India 'ILR (1981) 1 Delhi 514'; and (4) Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Company Ltd. (ITC Ltd.) v. Union of India, reported in '1984 (16) E.L.T. 234 Madras'. 5.  Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment of India's Exemption Order No. 191, dated 12-10-1933, issued under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, the goods in question, namely, ore sorter, should be allowed free entry and, if duty was already paid, whether the duty should be refunded. In this context, we have respectfully gone through the case-law cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants. In its judgment (Collector of Custom? and Central Excise, Rajkot v. Cotton Corporation of India and Others), the Tribunal, which referred to the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, observed as follows :- "The background leading to the issue of the show cause notice had been already indicated. The show cause notice proceeded on the basis that the ad hoc e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act but not similar to orders issued under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act. The High Court had further pointed but that the legislative schemes of the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Customs Act are different, liability to excise duty arising immediately on the manufacture of the goods liable for excise duty, but liability for customs duty arising not on all goods imported/exported but only on such goods as are specified in the tariff, the Act itself carving out certain areas where customs duty would not be attracted. It was, therefore, pointed out that no taxing event under Section 12 of the Customs Act takes place if the goods are covered by an exemption order. It was pointed out t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es must comply with the statutory orders. The area of operation at subordinate level in the administrative process is small and vision of the administrative" problem is necessarily narrow. These authorities are concerned with short term, immediate and smaller administrative problems. Import and export are conditioned by international requirement. They involve fundamental policy considerations. Coming to the facts of the present case, permitting import of free gift of milk powder from donor abroad involves a policy consideration. The social obligations to children and poorer sections of society are also matters of higher national policy and programme. It is beyond the subordinate authorities to comprehend these bigger policy consideration. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; In the case of 'Food Corporation of India v. C.C. Bombay' reported in '1984 (17) E.L.T. ISO', it was argued for the Department that the claim in question would not be covered by the ad hoc exemption as, in that case also, the goods arrived well before the issue of the ad hoc Exemption Order. He relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in 'AIR 1970 (S.C.) 385' and other case-law, but the Bench observed that, in all the cases quoted by him, the Courts were dealing with rules or bye-laws, made by the rule-making authority in such a manner that rights of citizens, or the affected persons, were adversely affected upon with retrospective effect. While directing that ad hoc exemption should be extended to the consignment in question, the Bench....