TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se duty and consequently no additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is payable on the goods. The Petitioners however, contended that inadvertently and under a bona fide mistake they did not claim exemption under the aforesaid notifications in respect of some Bills of entry. The Respondent No. 3 assessed all the Bills of Entry without extending the benefit of the above Notifications. The petitioners cleared the goods imported by them on payment of additional duty at the rate of 14% under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. According to Petitioners, the bills of entries were assessed without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard and without assigning any reasons for not extending ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red the appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 14.1.2009 by holding that the Petitioners did not challenge the assessment orders in appeal within the time prescribed and instead the Petitioners had prayed for refund. 4. By the present petition, what the Petitioners have prayed is to set aside the assessment made on the said Bills of entry being as under : (1) No. 777506 dated 07.04.2008 (2) 777486 dated 07.04.2008 (3) 782375 dated 09.04.2008 (4) 782358 dated 09.04.2008 (5) 843130 dated 26.05.2008 to the extent it seeks to charge additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Petitioners have also sought relief by way of a mandamus to direct the respondents to rectify the assessment made on the said bills to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, would not be attracted. 6. The first question that we are called upon to consider is, whether in the absence of impugning the original order of assessment by preferring a statutory appeal which was available, should this court, ought to exercise its the extra ordinary jurisdiction. From the averments in the Petition, it is clear that the Petitioners have not challenged in thier petition the orders rejecting the applications for refund. The Petitioners though had statutory remedy of an appeal against the order of assessment, did not invoke that remedy, but instead directly filed the applications for refund. The law is well settled that mere statutory remedy even of an appeal by itself, will be no bar to the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nciples of natural justice and fair play, entertained the writ petition inspite of alternative remedy being available. This court also noted that once there be notifications, even if attention of the respondents had not been drawn by the Petitioners to those notifications, a duty was cast on the Assessing Officer to consider the said notification considering that he is the authority to assess if they were relevant for the purpose of assessment. The view on alternative remedy was reiterated in an unreported judgment in Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Others, being Writ Petition No. 6134 of 2008 decided on 8th October, 2008. Our attention was also invited to another judgment of this court in Nandlal Vithaldas Vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d? The expressions in the Schedule and in the notification for exemption should be understood by the language employed therein bearing in mind the context in which the expressions occur. The words used in the provision, imposing taxes or granting exemption should be understood in the same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them. It is, however, necessary to bear in mind certain principles. The notification in this case was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Riles and should be read along with the Act. The notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions. When a notification is issued i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmittedly, based on the said notification were being granted benefit of the notification previous to the imports in issue and also subsequent to the imports in question. In other words, both the parties were aware of the said notifications. If the Petitioner on account of an inadvertent error chose not to apply for the benefit, would that result in denial of the benefit. In our opinion that by itself would not be answer as a duty is cast on the authority to assess the goods and impose duty according to law which includes a statutory notification, if duty cannot be demanded if otherwise not payable. Once there be a power to assess there is a corresponding duty to assess according to law. The fact that the Petitioner has paid the duty under m....