(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1) Rule. Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr.Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2) We have heard learned advocates for the parties.
3) The issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India Thr. The Secretary & Ors. in Special Civil Application No.1051 of 2012 and allied matters dated 2.7.2012. We therefore, do not discuss facts in much detail. The relevant paragraph Nos.23 to 26 are extracted below:
23).On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, hold that in the cases before us, there was no justification for detention of the goods and issue of show cause notice by the Revenue. We have already pointed out above that in the course of hearing of these writ-applications, the Revenue modified its earlier stance by accepting that they are not claiming that the goods in question is prohibited one but restricted their contention to the question of applicability of the exemption notification only.
24).We, therefore, hold that crude palm oil imported, which falls within Serial No. 1511 having acid value of more than 4, is entitled to get benefit of exemption of duty, and such exemption cannot be taken away by adding to the words in the notification as “ between 4 and 10”.
25).We, therefore, allow these writ-applications. By virtue of interim order granted during the pendency of these applications, a direction was given for releasing the goods on submission of bond. Since the writ-applications succeed, the bonds be discharged. If in any of the cases the goods have not yet been released, the Customs authorities are directed to release the same within a month from today.
26).All the writ-applications are thus allowed in terms of the above order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
4) The only difference between these two writ petitions are that, in those writ petitions, the goods had already been released by an interim order, whereas in this petition, no interim order was passed.
5) Resultantly, as the issue is identical, without separate discussion, this petition is also required to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to release the goods on submissions of bond by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(V.M.SAHAI,J.) (N.V.ANJARIA,J.) Vahid