Partly allowed

M/S Malji Devashi and Co. Mohamed a. Majid v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2009WP/1209/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the denial of duty drawback for castor oil exports. The court held that if one exporter is granted the facility for a specific period, another exporter of the same goods cannot be denied it for the same period. Petitioners were entitled to drawback for the fixed period and directed to seek a representation for the subsequent period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners entitled to duty drawback for the period 1-6-1989 to 31-5-1990; directed to make representation for the remaining period.

M/S Malji Devashi and Co. Mohamed a. Majid Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mgn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1209 OF 1994

¶5

`M/s.Mulji Devshi & Co.`	`)`
`a Partnership firm duly`	`)`
`registered under the`	`)`
`provisions of the Indian`	`)`
`Partnership Act, 1932 and`	`)`
`Carrying on business inter`	`)`
`alia at Mulji Devshi Building`	`)`
`116, Keshavji Naik Road,`	`)`
`Bombay-400 009`	`)..PETITIONERS`
`Versus`
`1.Union of India`	`)`
`2.The Union Secretary`	`)`
`(Drawback) Government of`	`)`
`India, Ministry of Finance,`	`)`
`Department of Revenue,`	`)`
`having his office at Jeevan`	`)`

¶6

¶7

`Deep, Parliament Street,`	`)`
`New Delhi-110 001.`	`)`
`3.The Commissioner (Drawback)`	`)`
`Department, Government of`	`)`
`India, Ministry of Finance,`	`)`
`Department of Revenue,`	`)`
`having his office at Jeevan`	`)`
`Deep, Parliament Street,`	`)`
`New Delhi-110 001.`	`)`
`4.Assistant Collector of`	`)`
`Customs, Draw Back Depart-`	`)`
`-ment, New Customs House,`	`)`
`Ballard Estate,`	`)`
`Bombay-400 038.`	`)`
`5.Agricultural & Marketing`	`)`
`Advisers to the Government`	`)`
`of India, Directorate`	`)`
`of Marketing and Inspection`	`)`
`Ministry of Food and`	`)`
`Agriculture, having his`	`)`
`Office at CGO Building,`	`)`
`3`^rd`Floor, 3`^rd`Floor, New`	`)`
`Marine Lines,Bombay-400 020`	`)...RESPONDENTS`

¶8

¶9

Mr. Pankaj A. Sawant with Ms. Trupti M. Kapadia and Mr.

¶10

V.C. Murlidharan i/b. Joy Legal Consultants for the
petitioner.

¶11

 Mr. A.S.Rao with Mr. J.B. Mishra for Respondents

¶12

 CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO &

¶13

 D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATED : 18TH SEPTEMBER , 2009

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.):

¶15

The issue in this petition is similar to what was in
issue in Writ Petition No.871 of 1994. The petitioners
herein are also exporters of Castor Oil which was
marketed as Castor Oil First Grade. The petitioners by
their application dated September 13, 1993 applied for
fixing of the rate in respect of the Castor Oil exported

¶16

by them as Castor Oil First Grade between the period
22-6-1989 to 31st December, 1990. Unlike in the case of
Petitioners in Writ Petition No.871 of 1994 Biotor
Industries Ltd., there were no rates fixed in so far

¶17

as Castor Oil exported by the petitioners. The
petitioners had also approached this Court by way of a
Writ Petition on account of refusal by the respondents

¶18

¶19

to fix the rates by way of Writ Petition No.1747 of
1993. By order dated 27thSeptember, 1993 the
respondents in respect of applications which were not
processed pertaining to the period 22/23-6-1989 to 21st
December, 1990 were directed to give a reasoned
decision. The respondents by their order dated 6th
February, 1991 rejected the claim of the petitioners.

¶20

2.In our opinion, once one exporter in respect of same
goods has been allowed drawback facility may be on the
fact that the rates had been fixed in his case for the
period 1-6-1989 to 31-5-1990 it would not be open to the
respondents in respect of another exporter to deny
similar benefits. In our opinion, therefore, these
petitioners will also be entitled to duty drawback for
exports done between the period 1-6-1989 to 31st May,
1990.

¶21

3.For the period after 1-6-1990 to 20-12-1990 the
petitioners herein to make a representation to the
respondents within sixty days from today. If such an
application is made considering what we have set out
while disposing of Writ Petition No.871 of 1994 the

¶22

¶23

respondents to dispose of the same in the light of the
observations in that petition at any rate not later than
six months from the date of receipt of the application.

¶24

To that extent petition partly allowed.

¶25

4.Rule made partly absolute accordingly. In the
circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to
costs.

¶26

(D.G. KARNIK,J.)(FERDINO I.REBELLO,J.)

M/S Malji Devashi and Co. Mohamed a. Majid v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Malji Devashi and Co. Mohamed a. Majid v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satpal Singh Viz Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S. Chemipol Mumbai Vs Union of India and Anr.

Indo Zinc Ltd.and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Khandesh Extraction Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai

Satish D. Sanghvi Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Satish D. Sanghvi Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.