SWASTIC RUBBER PRODUCTS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-1995-2-59
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 17,1995

SWASTIC RUBBER PRODUCTS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILISERS LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,MANGALORE DIVISION,MANGALORE AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS V. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN ALUMINIUM CABLES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY VS. SWASTIC WOOLLENS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE KANPUR VS. KRISHNA CARBON PAPER CO [REFERRED TO]
KESHAVJI RAVJI AND CO VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
AKBAR BADRUDIN GIWANI VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
OTHAYATH LEKSHMY AMMA VS. NELLACHINK UNIYIL GOVINDAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF ESTATE DUTY MADRAS VS. RATNA KUMARI KUMBHAT MRS [REFERRED TO]
PLASMAC MACHINE MANUFACTURING CO PVT LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
KASHYAP ZIP IND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PAREKH PRINTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.Ramamoorthy - (1.)There are two writ petitioners, the first petitionerM/s. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd., is a Public Limited Company, second petitioner is a Secretary of the first petitioner and the shareholder. There are threerespondents, first is the Union of India, second is the Assistant Collector of Customs,Bombay, and the third respondent is Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.
(2.)The first petitioner is having its registered office at Kirkee, Poona, in theState of Maharashtra. It is engaged in the business of manufacturers and dealers inall kinds of rubber, synthetic fabrics etc. In or about the 5th of August 1969 the firstpetitioner imported a product called Viton B for the purpose of manufacture ofvarious items or products of synthetic rubber from M/s. Du Pont NemoursInternational SA. At the time of the import, the Collector of Customs levied dutyunder tariff item 87 which read on that date:All other articles any Revenue 60%otherwise specified. ad valorem.According to the first petitioner, the duty should have been levied under tariffitem 39 which read on that date :Rubber Raw Revenue 40%ad valorem
(3.)The first petitioner paid the duty levied under protest as it had to clear thecargo for its business. In or about 13th of November, 1969 the first petitioner madean application through his Clearing Agents for the refund of the excise dutycollected by the Department. On 24th of July, 1970, second respondent Asstt.Collector of Customs rejected the application. That was affirmed in appeal by theAppellate Collector Customs. The first petitioner unsuccessfully approached theUnion of India. On 11th of February, 1974 the Joint Secretary to Govt.of Indiapassed the order dismissing the revision of the first petitioner. On 8th of May, 1974the writ petition was instituted in this Hon'ble Court. On 9.5.1974 the writ petitionwas admitted by this Court and interim orders were passed on 31.5.74.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.