TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (11) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and pass such other orders as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The controversy in this writ petition is with regard to the non-extending of benefits to the imports covered under Advance License scheme. According to the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was importing Acetic Anhydride and using it in the manufacture of final goods and exporting the said goods. Since the petitioner was covered under the Advance License scheme, the imports were exempted from payment of customs duty. While, so the Government of India issued Notification dated 25-11-1993 in Notification No. 183/93-Cus. withdrawing the exemption which was available to the petitioner in so far as payment of customs duty. Later, v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the petitioner submitted that the later notification dated 18-3-1994 was clarificatory in nature and that the petitioner was entitled to relief on grounds of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, the Tribunal seems to have held that the matter could be decided by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the appeals were permitted to withdrawn with liberty to challenge the orders before the High Court. Consequently, two Writ Petitions 25534 of 1999 and 25535 of 1999 were filed in this Court. Pending the writ petitions, the 1st respondent issued a letter dated 26-6-2000 intimating the petitioner that exemption will not be granted for the first two consignments. Aggrieved by the said intimation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 31-12-1993 was denied and that as the petitioner made representations to the appropriate Ministry the third consignment was also exempted. It is further contended that as the department communicated a demand notice to levy customs duty on two consignments dated 3-12-1993 and 18-12-1993, W.P. Nos. 25534 of 1999 and 25535 of 1999 were filed and that another order which was passed by the respondents on 26-6-2000 was also questioned in W.P. No. 13888 of 2000 in this Hon'ble and this Court after hearing all the three writ petitions together directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders. It is further submitted that the respondent passed the order impugned in this writ petition, but no reasons were given. As such, it is contended that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le for the relief. We do not see any reason as to why the respondents have not given any details and discussed elaborately as to how the petitioner is not eligible for such a relief. Coming to the second aspect is concerned, i.e. again remanding the matter to the respondents with a direction to pass appropriate order in tune with the directives issued by this Court while disposing of the batch of the writ petitions on earlier occasion, since we have noticed that the earlier directions have not been followed by the respondent, we are of the view that sending the matter again to the concerned authorities, who have not even applied their mind on this aspect would be a futile exercise. 6. Now the question is what relief the petitioner is ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t petition is neither clarificatory nor contained any reasons but it was passed in a routine manner. Obviously, the petitioner had the facility of exemption from payment of the customs duty under the scheme known as Advance License scheme, but the same was banned through notification dated 25-11-1993 and later through another clarificatory notification the same was extended by Notification dated 18-3-1994. Thus, since the Government itself has clarified by its second notification providing exemption, we are inclined to hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to be exemption for all the three consignments as long as the three consignments are imported under the Advance License scheme. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that t....