Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ruchi Soya Industries Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P. No. 21207 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/07/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ruchi Soya Industries Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)

The issue under consideration is whether the petitioner is liable for the refund for the excess amount of duty paid under customs as per the amended section 25 of Customs Act?

High Court states that, the notification was published on 6.3.2018 which is impugned in these writ petitions, published electronically on 6.3.2018. The notification was signed by Rakesh Sukul on 6.3.2018 at 19:15:13 + 05’30’. When notification needs to be signed digitally and only when the notification was uploaded and published in the Official Gazette, the same is made available for public. Perhaps, to avoid such contingency to give effect to the notification on the date of publication, the Government of India amended sub-section (4) of Section 25 of Customs Act, 1962. But, sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of Section 25 were not suitably amended and they remained as it is. Therefore, sub-sections (1), (2-A) and (4) of Section 25 are running contra to one another, creating confusion in the minds of public at large, atleast to the person who is dealing with the department. The respondents collected the customs duty initially @ 30%, but later by the time of release, customs duty was enhanced @ 44% and demanded the variation of 14%. As discussed above, sub-section (4) of Section 25 created absurdity, confusion and friction. The very collection of customs duty @ 44% on the imported goods belonging to these petitioners prior to the publication of notification in electronic mode is an illegality. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim refund of the amount paid in excess of 30% of the original rate of customs duty as on the date of presentation of ex-bond bills of entry for clearance of import goods for human consumption. Therefore, the respondents are liable to repay the excess amount which they collected from the petitioners beyond 30% of customs duty.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

The petitioner, a public limited company, has challenged the Notification issued by the respondent Customs Department dated 1.3.2018 under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 on several grounds that relate to the transaction of import of Crude Vegetable Oils in bulk by the petitioner company for manufacture of Soya Food products. The petitioner company entered into a contract on 15.1.2018 with its foreign supplier in Malaysia for purchase of Edible Palm Oil in bulk that was to be shipped from the port at Indonesia to be delivered at Chennai in India.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031