http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VICTORY PLASTICS PVT.LTD. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/02/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (2)697

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  is preferred  against the  judgment of the Bombay High  Court allowing  the writ  petition filed by the respondent. The writ petition was directed against the order of the  Assistant  Collector,  Customs  rejecting  a  refund application filed by the respondent.      The respondent  had  imported  P.V.C.  resin  which  is liable to  payment of duty under tariff item No. 39.01/96 of the First  Schedule to  the Customs  Tariff Act,  1975.  The Central  Government   had,  however,   issued  an  exemption notification  providing  that  P.V.C.  resin  falling  under Chapter 39 when imported into India shall be exempt from the whole of  the  duty  of  customs  leviable  thereupon.  This notification dated  March 15,  1979  stated  that  it  shall remain in  operation till  March 31,  1981. On  October  16, 1980, however, the said notification was modified by another notification limiting the exemption to the duty in excess of forty percent  ad valorem.  The respondent,  it  is  not  in dispute, opened  the letters  of credit only on November 20, 1980, i.e.,  after the  issuance of  the notification  dated October 16,  1980. The  import was much later. Even so, they contended that they should get the benefit of full exemption of duty  as provided  by the  first notification dated March 15, 1979  and that  the notification  dated October 16, 1980 cannot be  applied to  him. This  contention was rejected by the Assistant Collector but the High court has upheld the same.      An identical  dispute has  been pronounced upon by this Court in  Kasinka Trading  & Anr. etc. v. Union India & Anr. [J.T.1994 (7)  362]. The said decision deals with these very notifications. Indeed,  that was  a case where the appellant had placed  orders for the import of P.V.C. resin before the issuance of notification dated October 16, 1980. Even so, it was held that he cannot plead promissory estoppel nor can he claim full exemption under notification dated March 15, 1979

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

ignoring the  later notification.  The case  before us  is a clearer one  in the  sense that  the opening  of letters  of credit and  the  transaction  was  entered  into  after  the issuance  of   the  notification  dated  October  16,  1980. Following the  said decision - and also having regard to the aforementioned factual  position -  this appeal  is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside.      No costs.