Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.89 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Section 2 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 22 October, 1991
13. In the supplemental affidavit filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner had categorically stated in detail with reference to the manufacture of synthetic gems by the use of silica crucibles and the Petitioner made it clear that the Petitioner does not sell silica crucibles and does not trade in these silica crucibles. They are meant solely for use in the Petitioner's factory for manufacture of synthetic gems and these crucibles are used as refractory goods which could withstand very high industrial temperatures, which is necessary for the manufacture of synthetic gems. While so, it is manifest that the Petitioner had not passed on the incidence of taxation on the customers or buyers. That being the actual position, the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) is directly applicable to the present case. The Bombay High Court had in extenso dealt with the effect of the amending provisions. Sec. 27(2)(a) and (b) of the Act is very clear to the effect that the Petitioner is entitled to refund if such amount is relatable to the duty paid by the importer (a) if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty to any other person and (b) the duty on imports made by an individual for his personal use. In the instant case, the Petitioner had not passed on the incidence of duty to any other person. As explained supra, since the Petitioner has not directly passed on the goods as imported to the Customers or buyers, the question of passing on the incidence of duty does not arise.
The Customs Act, 1962
Miles India Ltd. vs Appellate Collector Of Customs on 6 January, 1983
In these circumstances, this Court has to consider that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away by any of the statutory prescriptions and in the instant case the ratio of Salonah Tea Company Ltd. case (supra) and Miles India case (supra) will directly apply so as to enable this Court to consider the claim of the Petitioner, by the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Apart from that, learned senior counsel for the petitioner represents that the process of manufacture of synthetic gems has been narrated in the supplemental affidavit in order to establish that the petitioner had not sold the imported goods to third parties and thereby passed on the incidence of taxation to third parties. The factum of such a statement has not been denied by the respondents and so this Court takes that the statement in the supplemental affidavit may be correct and the petitioner had not passed on the incidence of tax on the imported goods to third parties.