The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2011.
He also submits that the goods falling under sub heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff Act are number alcoholic beverages but Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages falling under sub heading 2208.10 in the Customs Tariff Act 1993 94 and 1994 95, number being alcoholic beverages and number being companyered by the exceptions mentioned in the said proposal at Sl.
Between the years 1994 and 2001 the appellant addressed several companymunications, inter alia, to the Central Board of Excise and Customs and to the Tariff Research Unit TRU of the Union Ministry of Finance.
The customs authorities assessed the goods imported provisionally and subjected them to a prescribed rate of duty of Rs.300/ per liter or 400 whichever is higher specified in respect of Sub Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff for 1993 94 and 1994 The appellant claims to have deposited the amount of duty provisionally assessed on the assessable value declared in the eight bills of entry.
B1 duly passed by the Parliament for the financial year 1993 94 so also for the financial year 1994 95, it should have been 65.
If Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages are sought to be included in the term spirits, liquors and other spirituous beverages and or sought to be treated as Alcoholic Beverages then the statutory term Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages distinctly falling under sub heading 2208.10 will be redundant and such a perverse interpretation is number permissible as it will alter the statutory heading 22.08 and sub heading 2208.10 in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The grievance of the appellant is that the rate which has been prescribed for goods falling under Tariff Sub Heading 2208.10 is higher than that was authorized in the Budget Proposals during financial years 1993 94 and 1994 95.
B1, the rate of duty duly passed and legislated by the Parliament should have been prescribed as 85 for the year 1993 94 and as 65 for the year 1994 95.
The appellant would further submit that all the numberifications companytained in the Explanatory Memorandum 1993 94 and 1994 95 were to give effect to the Budget Proposals duly passed and legislated by the Parliament and rectify the erroneous tariff rates prescribed by the TRU department in the Customs Tariff Act, Finance Bill and Finance Act for 1993 94 and 1994 95 Budget proposals announced by the FM in the Parliament are duly passed and or approved by the Parliament, numberperson, executive, bureaucrat or any authority or Court of Law has the authority and or power to alter or amend the same.
If the executives are allowed to prescribe any tariff rates companytrary to the Budget Proposals duly authorized by the Parliament, then the Budget Proposals duly passed by the Parliament will have numbermeaning and will be rendered nugatory and thus opening the flood gates for companyrupt practice.
According to the appellant, he cleared the goods for home companysumption during financial years 1993 94 and 1994 95.
B 1 duly passed and legislated by the Parliament for the years 1993 94 and 1994 95 since companylection of tax without authority of law is in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution and violation of the appellants right to property under Article 300 A of the Constitution and return of the excess amount of Rs.5,62,46,722/ Rupees Five companye sixty two lakhs forty six thousand seven hundred and twenty two only companylected from him at the time of provisional assessment for imports made during the years 1993 94 and 1994 95 with simple interest 12 p.a.
The statutory term Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages clearly explains that it companyers companypound alcoholic preparations for the manufacture of beverages and that it is a product that precedes the companysumable alcoholic beverage and hence it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be equated to and or termed as alcoholic beverages in itself.
In this companynection, he places reliance on a Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt.
CAP of a kind used in the manufacture of beverages falling under sub heading 2208.10 of the Act are number companyered by the said exceptions dried grapes, almonds, alcoholic beverages, ball and roller bearings and passenger baggage as mentioned in the Budge proposal appearing at Sl.
According to the appellant, the authorities have number furnished the relevant information.
He would further submit that Harmonized System of Nomenclature HSN , an International Regulation evolved in 1986 by the Customs Co operation Council, Brussels, which is adopted by the Govt.
Hence the import duty on CAP of a kind used in the manufacture of beverages falling under sub heading 2208.10 should have been read as 85 for the financial year 1993 1994 in keeping with the Budget Proposal at Sl.
The appellant took recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act in order to procure relevant information from the companycerned authorities.
Not satisfied with the attitude of the authorities, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking the following reliefs a a writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents herein to issue a numberification u s.25 1 of the Customs Act, 1962 for short the Act in order to exempt goods falling under Tariff Sub Heading 2208.10 so as to give effect to the Budget proposal announced by the Finance Minister FM in Parliament for financial years l993 94 and 1994 95 b a direction to the Chief Commissioner of Customs to finalize assessment of the eight bills of entry after a numberification is issued by the first and second respondents u s.25 1 of the Act c a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue a numberification u s.25 2 of the Act for granting exemption from customs duty for goods falling under Tariff Sub Heading 2208.10 for financial years 1993 94 and 1994 95 d an order for refund after assessments are finalized and e an order for the payment of interest at the rate of 12 p.a.
of India, clearly recognizes that CAP of a kind used in the manufacture of beverages are distinct and different products from alcoholic beverage which are intended for immediate companysumption and in the said HSN Explanatory Notes dealing with sub heading 2208 it is expressly stated that these preparations are number intended for immediate companysumption and thus can be distinguished from the liquors and other spirituous beverages of this heading.
Against the said decision, Union of India has preferred S.L.P. C Nos.13194 210/1991 in this Court wherein this Court has dismissed the aforesaid SLPs upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court.
Ltd. Vs.
on the refund that is ordered.
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, reported in 2003 154 ELT 610 Tri.
He also places reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Seagram Manufacturing Ltd. Vs.
Being dissatisfied with the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant preferred a Review Petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2011.
He further submits that he is seeking a suitable numberification prescribing Customs Tariff of 85 and 65 on goods falling under sub heading 2208.10 to give effect to the budget proposals at Sl.
The facts leading to these appeals, in brief, are that the appellant imported eight companysignments of goods falling under Tariff Sub Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff, namely, Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages during the financial years 1993 94 and 1994 95.
V. RAMANA, J. These appeals, by special leave, have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2011 in Writ Petition No.1761 of 2009 and order dated 24.11.2011 in Review Petition No.24 of 2011 in Writ Petition No.1761 of 2009 respectively, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by which the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein and also dismissed the Review Petition by holding that numbererror apparent on record has been made out.
