Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.43 seconds)
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva - V on 11 December, 2023
cites
Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005
38. It is true that ordinarily, the golden rule of literal
interpretation must be given effect to. But it is also well-
settled that where literal interpretation gives rise to an
anomaly of absurdity; the same should be avoided. [See
Ashok Lanka and Another v. Rishi Dixit and Others -
(2005) 5 SCC 598]; Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v.
M/S. Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ... on 24 February, 2005
40. We, however, do not agree with the contention of
Mr. Lakshmikumaran that by reason of a public notice
issued by a Custom House situated in a State, the effect
and purport of statutory notification can be taken away.
In terms of Section 151A of the Customs Act, it is only the
Board which may issue instructions. Even under the
aforementioned provision, the Board exercises a limited
power. [See Pahwa Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, New Delhi -(2005) 2 SCC 720].
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Ambay Cements & Anr on 17 November, 2004
8. The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Ambay Cements and another -
2004(11) TMI 319, relied upon by the learned Commissioner in the
impugned order, is entirely on different set of facts inasmuch the
ratio as per the said judgement is that the conditions of exemption
notification have to be strictly construed and not otherwise. In the
case in hand, the appellants were within the scope and ambit of the
notification dated 11.11.1997 inasmuch as the goods imported were
entirely dedicated for the projects provided thereunder; and that
they had also taken steps for compliance with the notification much
before the date of importation of the subject goods, by way of filing
the application as envisaged in the said notification. Since, the
Essentiality Certificate was belatedly issued by the Government
department, the appellants, in our considered view, cannot be
denied with the benefit provided by the Government of India in the
public interest.
Section 30 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs M/S. Tullow India Operations Ltd on 28 October, 2005
It
is also an admitted fact on record that the application dated
10.10.2019 filed by the appellants were favorably considered by the
competent authority for the duty exemption entitlement viz.
Essentiality Certificate. Since, such certificate was issued upon
subjective analysis that the goods are meant for use in the
designated project(s), spelt out in the notification, denial of such
benefit by the department is contrary to the legislative intent behind
issuance of such notification, which was specifically designed in the
public interest to grant the benefit provided thereunder. Identical
issue involved in these appeals have been dealt with by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tullow India Operations Ltd. (supra).
The relevant paragraphs in the said judgement are extracted here
under:
Section 151A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
M/S Ongc Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 1 April, 2011
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that
the application was made before the competent authorities for issue
of the Duty Exemption Certificate (DEC) on 10.10.2019, which is
prior to the date of filing of the Bills of Entry (filed in the month of
January, 2020). Thus, he submitted that the appellant should not be
penalized for non-consideration of the application by the one wing of
the Government belatedly. He further submitted that since the
goods imported by the appellants were intended for the specific use,
as per the terms provided under the Notification dated 11.11.1997,
the benefit of duty exemption should not be denied for no fault of
the appellants. To support such stand, the learned Advocate has
relied upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai Vs. Tullow
India Operations Ltd., reported in 2005 (10) TMI 502 - Supreme
Court and ONGC Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
reported in 2006 (8) TMI 181 - Supreme Court. On the basis of the
submissions made, learned Advocate prayed for remanding the
matter to the original authority for verification of the DEC and for
grant of the duty exemption provided under the notification dated
11.11.1997.
1