Discriminatory proceedings of claiming differential duty on Emergency Lamps: Madras HC grants relief to Importer [Read Order]

Discriminatory proceedings - differential duty on Emergency Lambs - Emergency Lambs - differential duty - Madras High Court - Importer - Taxscan

In a recent judgement, the Madras High Court (HC) granted relief to the importer when discriminatory proceedings of claiming differential duty on emergency lamps against the importer assessee.

Manoj Kumar Dhariwal, the petitioner challenged the Order Original has been served on the petitioner by the respondents in all the available means as prescribed under Section 153 of the Customs Act.

The petitioner contended that he was not aware of the impugned Order in the Original dated 11.05.2004. According to him, only a recovery notice was issued to the petitioner in the year 2006, which was replied to by the petitioner immediately upon receipt of the same. Thereafter no further steps were taken by the respondents to recover the alleged differential duty, which is claimed in the impugned Order in the Original.

It was submitted that the petitioner was not served with the impugned Order in Original and prior notice was also not received by him. Further stated that in respect of the very same product, namely, emergency lamps, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by its order dated 30.07.2004, involving 68 importers, had granted relief by allowing the Appeals and therefore, the petitioner cannot be discriminated and the same benefit should also be given to him.

A Single member  Coram comprising of Justice Abdul Quddhose viewed that after a lapse of almost sixteen years from the date of the impugned Order in Original, the petitioner must be put on terms for quashing the impugned Order in Original dated 11.05.2004 and for reconsideration of the same, on merits.

Further held that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if such a direction is issued as the respondents will be getting revenue given the deposit made by the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed by directing the petitioner to deposit with the first respondent a sum of Rs.2,22,427/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader