Customs Act, 1962:
Customs duty – Exemption from – Entitlement – Revenue imported consignment under one advance licence issued prior to 19.5.1992 – Part of consignment was imported prior to 25.11.1993 and the rest subsequent thereto – Assessee sought exemption from customs duty in terms of Custom Notifications dated 19.5.1992 – Revenue allowed exemption from customs duty in respect of part of the consignments which were actually imported prior to 25.11.1993 i.e. the date of Notifications whereby the exemption was withdrawn – The exemption claim was rejected in respect to the part of the remaining consignment which was imported after 25.11.1993 without making any reference to clarificatory notification dated 18.3.1994 whereby import of chemical was permitted without customs duty subject to certain terms and conditions – Writ petition of assessee dismissed by High Court – In review petition High Court held that since the assessee did not produce the clarificatory Notification and neither the Revenue/State was aware of that Notification, the assessee was not entitled to any relief – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In view of clarificatory Notification the assessee is entitled to the exemption from customs duty – It is absolutely no defence of State Authorities to contend that they were not aware of their own Notification i.e. clarificatory Notification – The onus heavily rests on the State – The State cannot behave like a private litigant and rely on abstract theories of burden of proof. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1 The entire consignment was imported under one advance licence issued to the petitioner prior to 19.05.1992. Part of the consignment was actually imported prior to 25.11.1993 and the rest subsequent thereto is hardly relevant in view of the clarificatory notification dated 18.03.1994 that the exemption would continue to apply subject to fulfilment of the specified terms and conditions. It is not the case of the respondents that the consignments imported subsequently did not meet the terms and conditions of the exemption. [Para 8][1186 A-C]
2. The High Court further gravely erred in holding that the authorities of the State were also unaware of the clarificatory notification and neither did the appellant bring it on record. The State is the largest litigant. It stands in a category apart having a solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice. The State cannot behave like a private litigant and rely on abstract theories of the burden of proof. The State acts through its officer who are given powers in trust. If the trust so reposed is betrayed, whether by casualness or negligence, will the State still be liable for such misdemeanor by its officers betraying the trust so reposed in them or will the officers be individually answerable. It is absolutely no defence of the State Authorities to contend that they were not aware of their own notification dated 18.09.1994. The onus heavily rests on them and a casual statement generating litigation by State apathy cannot be approved. [Para 9][1186 E-H; 1187-A]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore (1988) 1 SCC 626 – relied on.
Shri Krishna Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India (2004) 173 ELT 14 – approved.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.