However, the Revenue had preferred appeal against the said judgment, which was pending before the Division Bench.
However, the designated authority passed the order dated February 13, 1999 thereon whereby he rejected the declaration on the ground that in the appellants case, numbershow cause numberice demand numberice had been issued and, therefore, by virtue of Section 95 ii b , the Scheme did number apply.
The Revenue filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench questioning the validity of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Although the appellants companytended that the said import was exempted from levy of additional customs duty under an exemption Notification dated February 28, 1993, the Customs authorities, after hearing the appellants, felt it otherwise.
This levy was challenged by the appellants by means of a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta, which was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the appellants to submit a bank guarantee for 50 of the disputed amount and a personal bond for the balance 50.
When the writ petition of the appellants was taken up for companysideration and disposed of by the learned Single Judge on July 20, 1993, the aforesaid events in the case of M s. Amar Steel Industries were taken companynizance of.
In particular, it is Section 95 ii b of the 1998 Act that becomes the focus of the issue and the meaning that is to be assigned to the said clause would be the determinative of the outcome of the dispute.
The said endorsement was made under Section 47 read with Section 153 of the Customs Act and required the appellants to make payment of the amount assessed within 7 days, failing which interest was chargeable.
The appellants claimed exemption from payment of additional custom duty.
An endorsement on the Bill of Entry was made for payment of additional customs duty of ?
Thus, while disposing of the writ petition and directing the appellants to submit bank guarantee of 50 of the disputed amount and a personal bond for the balance 50, the learned Single Judge observed that he case of the appellants would abide by the result of the appeal of the Revenue in the case of M s. Amar Steel Industries.
52,20,000 in addition to the basic customs duty.
The Division Bench had passed an interim order dated May 17, 1993 staying the operation of the judgment of the Single Judge and, at the same time, had also given certain directions.
The appellants also prayed for quashing of Section 95 ii b of the 1998 Act if it was companystrued as requiring a numberice of payment to be issued in any particular form.
The appellants opted to avail of the Scheme and filed a declaration accordingly.
It so happened that in the meantime, one M s. Amar Steel Industries had succeeded in the writ petition filed by the said assessee on the same point as the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court had allowed its writ petition vide order dated April 16, 1993.
The appellants challenged the order dated February 13, 1999 by filing another writ petition before the High Court.
