Page 190 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

76 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

amended by clause 60 of the Finance Bill, 2010, Notification No. 91/2010-Cus.,
dated 6-9-2010, the Court had granted limited relief to the extent that it had set
aside the proviso to Notification No. 25/2010-Cus., dated 27-2-2010, which pro-
vided that the notification exempting goods falling under Tariff Item 2716 00 00
from the whole of the duty of Customs leviable thereon which is specified in the
First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would not apply to electrical ener-
gy falling under Tariff Item 2716 00 00 removed from SEZ to DTA or non-
processing areas of SEZs.
12. It may be noted that the above notification stood rescinded by a no-
tification dated 10th May, 2010 except as respects things done or omitted to be
done before such rescission. Thus, the life of the said notification was only for a
short period of less than three months.
13. Insofar as the other notifications which were subject matter of chal-
lenge in that petition are concerned, it appears that the Division Bench did not
deem it fit to grant the reliefs prayed for in the petition and restricted the same to
the above Notification No. 25/2010-Cus., dated 27-2-2010 and also held that the
petitioners are entitled to exemption from payment of Customs duty for the pe-
riod 26-6-2009 to 15-9-2010 on the electricity cleared to DTA, that is, for the peri-
od during from which the Notification No. 25/2010-Cus., dated 27-2-2010 which
amended Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 was given retrospective
effect till Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. came to be further amended vide Notifi-
cation No. 91/2010-Cus., dated 6-9-2010.
14. It may be noted that vide Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-
3-2012, Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 came to be superseded.
However, the said notification and the subsequent notification amending the
said notification, viz., Notification No. 26/2012-Cus., dated 18-4-2012 were not
challenged by the petitioners, though the writ petition was pending before the
Court at the relevant time.
15. It may be noted that not only did the Division Bench, after pro-
pounding the principles on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the peti-
tioners to seek declaratory relief, not granted the relief as prayed for in the earlier
writ petition and restricted it to the period from 26-6-2009 to 15-9-2010, after the
judgment was delivered, the petitioners upon noticing the same, moved a Note
for Speaking to the Minutes, praying for the relief in the following terms :

Sr. Text as appearing in the judg- Text as it should read Pg. No. in
No. ment judgment
1. In para 61, 7th line reads as un- 60
der :
“.... Thus, the dispute in the pre- “.... Thus, the dispute in the
sent writ petition is confined to present writ petition is for
the period from June 2009 to 15-9- the period from June 2009
2010. onwards.
2. In para 63, 5th line reads as un- 61
der :
“.... The petitioner is entitled for “… The petitioner is entitled
exemption from payment of cus- for exemption from payment
toms duty for the period 26-7- of Customs duty for the pe-
2009 to 15-9-2010.” riod 26-7-2009 onwards, so
long as no Customs duty is
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  238