1988 (1) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Order :-This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, the order of the High Court dated 30-4-1981 and made herein, and the Counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order in No. 307-B/80, dated 11-11-1980 on the file of 1st respondent comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. Ganapathy for M/s. S. Venkataraman and Jyoti Balasundaram, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. P. Narasimhan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, on behalf of the respondents, the Court made the following order :- 3. Mr. N. Ganapathy, learned counsel for the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Government of India allow the revision application subject to this condition." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the revisional authority has found force in the contention raised by the petitioner, he ought not to have further subjected the petitioner to certain restrictions which are not warranted, especially when his case has been, more or less, accepted by the revisional authorities. He further submits that there be also belief reposed on the petitioner when he had stated in his petition that the articles which are being imported will be only used for the purpose of saving life of persons as enumerated in Notification No. 182-Cus/76, dated 2-8-1976. In this regard, he points out the Schedule II of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... quashed. 7. In the affidavit accompanying this writ petition it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner is the only manufacturer of D.C. Defibrillators in India and that the Notification exempting the payment of duty applies with equal force to any manufacturer inasmuch as a hospital cannot manufacture any components or import components directly without recourse to a dealer or manufacturer. The main point urged in the revision petition was that the Notification No. 182/76 (Customs) speaks for itself and is an authority which cannot be diluted by any clarification distinguishing a component part imported by the manufacturers from components imported by hospitals. The petitioner further contended that the components and accessories co....