Page 175 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] ADANI POWER LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 61

belated petition, these notifications have not been challenged per se but only
declaratory relief based on previous judgment sought which cannot be granted
as ibid - Further since these subsequent notifications have not been chal-
lenged, case cannot be taken up on merits also - Article 226 of Constitution of
India. [paras 20, 21, 22, 23]
Exemption on import of electricity - Country specific exemption - Gen-
eral admissibility - Petitioner cannot take benefit of Notification No. 9/2016-
Cus., as NIL rate of duty prescribed therein is country specific i.e. import of
electricity from Nepal and Bhutan - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para
24]
Exemption Notifications - Scope of - Such notifications only grant ex-
emption from payment of duty from tariff - These notifications do not impose
Customs duty - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 19]
Petition dismissed
CASES CITED
Adani Power Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (330) E.L.T. 883 (Guj.)
— Relied on ................................... [Paras 4.4, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 5.4, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24]
Aidek Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (318) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ..... [Para 5.2]
Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu — (2000) 8 SCC 395 — Referred .................................................. [Para 5.5]
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India — 2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.) — Referred ............... [Para 8.3]
Essar Steel Ltd. v. Union of India — 2010 (249) E.L.T. 3 (Guj.) — Referred .................................... [Para 5.8]
Frick India Ltd. v. Union of India — 1990 (48) E.L.T. 627 (S.C.) — Referred .................................. [Para 8.1]
Gujarat Paraffins Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2012 (282) E.L.T. 33 (Guj.) — Referred ............... [Para 5.5]
Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania — (2010) 9 SCC 437 — Referred ..... [Para 5.5]
Roxul Rockwool Insulation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2015 (320) E.L.T. 554 (Guj.) — Referred ................................................................................. [Para 5.1]
Union of India v. Adani Power Ltd. — 2016 (331) E.L.T. A129 (S.C.) — Referred ....................... [Para 4.10]
Union of India v. Engee Industrial Services Co. Ltd. — 2016 (335) E.L.T. 197 (S.C.)
— Referred ...................................................................................................................................... [Para 5.2]
Union of India v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation — (1996) 7 SCC 542 — Referred ...................... [Para 8.4]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
M.C. & I. (D.C.), Instruction No. 6, dated 3-8-2006 ............................................................................ [Para 8.5]
M.C. & I. (D.C.), SEZ Section, Instruction No. 67, dated 28-10-2010 ....................................... [Paras 6.2, 18]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Kamal Trivedi, Senioer Advocate with Uday
Joshi, Vikram Nankani and Vinya Baragra, Advo-
cates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Avani S. Mehta, Senior Standing Counsel,
S/Shri Devang Vyas, Advocate and Parth H. Bhatt,
for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)]. - On 5-5-2017 this Court
passed the following order :
“1. In this matter, the Learned Advocates for the respective parties were
heard at length and the Court had commenced with the dictation of the
judgment on 10-3-2017. In the midst of the dictation, it was noticed that the
notifications in relation to which submissions were advanced, were not sub-
ject matter of challenge and that the relief prayed for was more in the na-
ture of a declaratory relief. Under the circumstances, the Learned Advo-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  223