1986 (8) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port of Rock Phosphate through a Public Sector Agency i.e. Minerals and Metal Trading Corporation of India Limited. The cannalising agency laid down the procedure for import of rock phosphate. On or about April 15, 1972, the Government of India issued notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act to exempt rock phosphate in all forms where imported into India for use in the manufacture of fertilizer, from so much duty of the Customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule of the Indian Tariff Act, 1954 as was in excess of duty leviable on fertilizers falling under Entry 35. The rock phosphate imported by the petitioners through the cannalising agency was always in a powder form. The consignment of rock phosphate if assessed under Entry....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er 18, 1972 and on September 20, 1972 duty was paid under protest under Entry No. 87 and the amount of duty was Rs. 6,10,977.45. The petitioners also filed a refund application on October 4, 1972. 3. Subsequent consignments of rock phosphate arrived in Bombay Port and in respect of those consignments, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 206 of 1976 and Writ Petition No. 41 of 1976 in this Court claiming that the consignment of rock phosphate attracts Entry 35 and not Entry 87. Both the petitions were disposed of by Mr. Justice Lentin by Judgment dated November 6, 1979 in the case of Albright Morarji and Pandit Limited v. Union of India and others reported in 1980 Excise Law Times 550 holding that the consignment is liable to duty und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioners filed the present petition on November 5, 1982 to challenge the action of the Department in refusing refund, in spite of the judgment delivered by this Court. Shri Vahanwati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted, and, in my judgment, with considerable merit that the communication sent by the Deputy Collector conveying that the refund application was rejected in 1973 is totally arbitrary and unsustainable. Shri Vahanwati submits that the petitioners have filed appeals on September 18, 1972 and that appeal was not disposed of, nor any notice of hearing of that appeal was served on the petitioners. The petitioners had also filed refund application on October 4, 1972 and the Assistant Collector did not give....