TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or a period upto 31st March 1989. By Notification No. 159/88-Cus. dated 13th May 1988 also issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Government of India exempted several goods, which were granted full or partial exemption from customs duty, from payment of auxiliary duty of customs. On 10th September 1988, the petitioner placed orders for supply of two diesel generating sets of 4.3 MW each on Wartsila Diesel AB, Sweden for value of approximately Rs.3,86,73,175/-. After obtaining necessary licence from DGFT on 17th August 1988, the petitioner opened a letter of credit on 2nd January 1989 in favour of the vendor. The vendor shipped the diesel generating sets in several boxes. The first consignment valued at Rs.3,02,03,745/- appropriately arrived in the Port of Calcutta on 16th February 1989 and was cleared by the customs authorities applying the concessional rate of customs duty on the basis of exemption notifications referred to above. The balance cargo valued at about Rs.84,69,430/- was shipped by the vendor from Sweden on 21st February 1989 and a bill of entry was filed on 27th March 1989 at the Port of Bombay claiming benefit of concessional rate of duty as per the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petition, the first affidavit filed by the respondents as also the additional affidavit filed by Mr. Sanjay Sreenath. However, before we turn to the averments made in the petition and the affidavit in reply, it would be appropriate to refer to the decisions relied upon by the petitioner. 5. In Shrijee Sales Corporation (supra), the facts were that a Notification No. 66-Cus was issued by the Government on 15th March 1979 granting exemption in respect of import of PVC resins falling under chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 from the duty of customs leviable thereon. On the faith of the said notification, the petitioner therein imported the goods which arrived in the Port of Bombay on 8th November 1980. However, before the arrival of the goods in the Port of Bombay, the Notification No. 66-Cus. by Notification No. 205-Cus. was withdrawn by Notification No. 205/T-No. 355/141/80 with effect from 16th October 1980. The petitioner therein contended that the Government would be estopped from rescinding the benefit of Notification No. 66-Cus. The High Court rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground that imposition of taxes and withdrawal ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G.C. became liable to pay duty to the extent of 25% for the period between 30th December 1986 and 10th September 1987. The appellant filed a petition before the High Court contending therein that it had taken importation of the material on the basis that no duty was leviable or payable on the imported material and withdrawal and therefore the Government was bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The High Court held that Notification No. 210/82-Cus. had been issued in public interest and modified again in public interest and therefore dismissed the petition. Referring to its earlier decision in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1999 (110) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1985 (2) SCR 237, the Supreme Court observed that the power to grant exemption under Section 25 of the Customs Act is a legislative power and the notification issued by the Government thereunder amounts to a piece of subordinate legislation, even then the notification is liable to be questioned on the ground that it is an unreasonable one inasmuch as a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. Sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) SCC 625, wherein the doctrine of legitimate expectation was explained. 8. These decisions lay down that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is available even against the State and its limbs who are bound by the representations made by it if a subject has altered his position to his/her disadvantage relying on the representations. The State however is entitled to alter or withdraw a notification (and thereby withdraw the representations made in it) if the public interest requires it to do so. The burden of showing overriding public interest would be on the State. 9. Referring to the facts of the present case, it may be noted that the petitioner has not pleaded the doctrine of legitimate expectation at all. However, some pleadings relating to promissory estoppel are found in ground no. (d) of the writ petition. Though the pleadings in that respect are not very satisfactory, perhaps because the law was not so developed when the writ petition was filed in the year 1989, we would assume that the petitioner relied upon the representation made by the Government in the exemption notification for the purpose of importation of DG sets and examine whether the State has made out a ca....