TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms Act, 1962 was filed on 27-2-1989. It so happened that the vessel which brought the goods into the territorial waters of India could not get a berthing at the Madras port because of a strike by the port labour/employees. It is on account of this strike that the entry inward certificate could not be issued by the customs authorities immediately after the entry of the vessel into the territorial waters. The entry inward certificate was ultimately issued on 2-3-1989. 2. The difficulty that has arisen in the present case is that the finance budget of the Central Government was introduced on 28-2-1989 and the tax proposals took effect from 1-3-1989. In the pre-budget scenario, the petitioner was liable to pay duty to the extent of Rs. 15.7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ible scale down the duty to a figure bearing a reasonable correlation to the value of the goods imported. A representation in this behalf may be filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today. The Government should dispose of the representation within four weeks thereafter, at any rate, not later than 30-9-1992." Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 20-8-1992. The said representation inter alia sought the issuance of an ad hoc exemption order under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was rejected by a reasoned order dated 28-9-1992 by the Central Government. 4. Thereafter, another representation dated 8-10-1992 was submitted by the petitioner with regard to the contents of Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the letter dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitions are dismissed out, however, without costs." 6. From the above extract it appears that the Supreme Court had not been apprised of the fact that the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 11-8-1992 had already been disposed of as indicated above. However, since the Supreme Court had directed that the respondent may consider the case sympathetically and that it was open to the Government to consider the same and pass appropriate order, the petitioner filed another representation before the Central Government on 29-12-1992. In Paragraphs 6 to 8 of this representation, for the first time, the petitioner represented that it was not the intention of the Central Government, as discernible from the Finance Mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had, as mentioned above, filed another representation in which the said additional point was taken. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent with regard to the point made by the petitioner pertaining to the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. The relevant parts of the said affidavit reads as under :- "The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1931 provides that where a Bill to be introduced on behalf of the Government provides for the increase of a duty of customs or excise, the Central Government may cause to be inserted in the Bill a declaration that it is expedient in the public interest that any provision of the Bill relating to such imposition or....