1991 (7) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... favourable treatment to MMTC are discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In some of the cases an additional ground taken is that the duty should be charged which was applicable on the date when the goods entered the territorial waters of India and not the duty which may be applicable on the date of filing of bill of lading. Both the above points are now covered by the decisions of a Constitution Bench of this Court in M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. [1989 3 SCR 356 = 1989 (42) E.L.T. 344 (SC)] and Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.[1989 3 SCR 367 = 1989 (43) E.L.T. 189 (SC)]. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish M.J. Bhatusha'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under the Aluminium Control Order, the selling price of aluminium being lower than the import price, the corporation will be out of pocket by rupees 18 crores at the prices prevailing then even if no import duty is charged on the 75,000 tonnes of aluminium and it would be much higher if duty is charged on the same. The Corporation also pointed out that whereas the amount payable to the Corporation from the Aluminium Regulation Account to neutralise the loss would be about rupees 18 crores, the actual amount available in the said account for disbursement to the Corporation could be approximately rupees 4 crores only. Therefore, the Corporation requested the Union Government to consider the arrangements to be made to reimburse at least rupees....