TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls must possess the import licence and have to carry out certain export obligations. The obligations concerning this for the period in question, namely, April, 1983, to March, 1984, were given in the import and export policy for that period. Previously, a public notice in respect of the scheme for supply of raw material by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. ('the SAIL') against advance import licences was issued on 11-12-1982. For the period 1983-84, it was announced, the scheme published on 11-12-1982, would be continued. According to that, the importer becomes eligible for supply of goods on compliance with the conditions fixed in the scheme, in particular, the conditions of producing advance licences, duty exemption entitlement certificate, legal undertaking /execution of export bond and furnishing of irrevocable letter of credit. The appellant as an indigenous supplier under the aforesaid Import and Export Policy for 1983-84 made an announcement of the prices at which the raw material will be supplied. That announcement was published in the Economic Times on 10-6-1983, under the caption 'Scheme for supply of certain categories of indigenously produced steel materials at competit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quential refund of the difference between the pre-revised and revised prices. The appellant resisted the writ petition by filing a detailed reply to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 7. The High Court proceeding on a wrong premise, namely, that SAIL (appellant) was a department of Union of India but its administration is run separately in the interest of efficiency; held that the importer (Ambica Tubes) was not responsible for the defects pointed out in the licence/ release order and it was the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports alone who was responsible for the defects for which the importer should not be punished. In other words, the High Court was of the view that the licence though defective must be deemed to have been presented on 20-8-1983, long before the revised price was announced. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to charge for the supply of raw materials at the revised rate. The High Court also directed the refund of the difference between the pre-revised and the revised rates. The High Court further observed that the action of the appellant 'in not registering the petitioners' indent No. 7 of 1983, dated 19-8-1983, la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not an iota of justification for them to sit tight on that date August 24,1983, and all that was required to be done was done by these petitioners. If such things are allowed to go, it would set a very bad example in the working of the rule of law in practical and final analysis. It is because of this necessity of striking down the action of the public authority, namely, the SAIL, that we are inclined to entertain this petition and decide it and if for that purpose we have to strike a departure from the normal rule of not entertaining even money claims, we would very willingly do so, so that such actions would not be repeated in future. We, however, add that here essentially the challenge was to the right of fixation of price at any capricious time and that was the subject-matter of the petition, but we are not required to go into it and, therefore, we do not go into it. Otherwise, much could be said in favour of the petitioners when they contained that the prices are required to be fixed quarterly. The term 'quarterly' would mean every three months and the SAIL has fixed the price on December 11, 1982, March 14, 1983, June 7, 1983 and March 25, 1983 and had we been required to de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the pre-revised price on the ground that the mistake, if at all, was on the part of the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and, therefore, it should not be penalised. According to the learned counsel, the conditions of the scheme published enable the appellant to insist upon all the documents to be furnished before release of the raw material. The SAIL was not concerned with the party responsible for the defect in the document. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in making certain observations against the appellant. According to Mr. Dhruv Mehta, the appeal should be allowed. 12. Mr. Parekh the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, placing reliance on para 2.3 of the scheme announced on 10-6-1983, submitted that the letter of credit having been furnished after rectifying the defects before 25-8-1983, the importer is entitled to get the supplies at the pre-revised rate notwithstanding the defects in the licence/release order as the importer was not responsible for the defects. He also submitted that the High Court was well within its jurisdiction in entertain-ing the writ petition and granting the relief. According to learned cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....than the tonnage covered by the import licence, the dispatches shall be restricted to the quantity covered by the financial arrangement. (c)In all cases, the interpretation and decisions of SAIL as to the acceptability, adequacy, effectiveness and operativeness of the financial arrangement made by eligible import licence holders in favour of SAIL for supply of materials under this scheme shall be final and binding." Coming to the merits of the case, we accept contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court went wrong in holding that SAIL was a department of the Union of India. In Dr. S.L. Agarwal's case (supra), a Constitution Bench of this court, while considering a similar question, held as follows: ". . . We must, therefore, hold that the corporation which is Hindustan Steel Limited in this case is not a department of the Government nor are the servants of it holding posts under the State. It has its independent existence and by law relating to corporations, it is distinct even from its members. . . ." (p. 1153) 14. In Western Coalfields Ltd's case (supra) this court held as follows: ". . . It contended by the Attorney-General that since the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l simultaneously issue the collected duty exemption entitlement certificate. The policy does not provide for issuance of advance licence without duty exemption. Bearing the abovesaid facts in mind, let us now consider the issue raised before us. 17. Admittedly when the importer wanted to register the indent for supply of hot rolled strips in coils, the licences/release orders produced lacked in material particulars and relevant enclosures. In other words, the licence did not mention that it was an advance licence and no duty exemption entitlement certificate was enclosed and legal undertaking/exemption of export bond was also not enclosed. It was on this admitted position, the appellant declined to register the indent of the importer. No doubt, the mistake was committed by the licensing authority. Does that mean that the appellant can ignore the lacuna in the documents and register the indent placed by the importer in contravention of the requirements of the scheme? The High Court held that the licensing authority and the appellant being two different wings/departments of the Union of India, the appellant on receipt of rectified documents on 26-8-1983, must register the indent as....