Page 193 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] ADANI POWER LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 79

tification No. 26/2012-Cus., dated 18-4-2012 in view of the law laid down by this
Court in the judgment dated 15-7-2015 delivered in the case of the petitioner
company itself being Special Civil Application No. 3142 of 2010 and ancillary
reliefs.
22. In this regard it may be noted that insofar as Notification No.
21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 as amended by clause 60 of Finance Bill, 2010 and Noti-
fication No. 91/2010-Cus., dated 6-9-2010 are concerned, the same were subject
matter of challenge in the above writ petition, but the Division Bench did not
deem it fit to grant any relief in respect of those notifications. Therefore, the ques-
tion of giving a declaration qua those notifications based upon the findings rec-
orded in the said judgment does not arise. Insofar as Notification No. 12/2012-
Cus. and Notification No. 26/2012-Cus. are concerned, the same were issued
during the pendency of the previous petition, but the petitioners did not deem it
fit to challenge the same at the relevant time or seek any relief qua those notifica-
tions in that petition. Thereafter, belatedly, in this petition which is filed in the
year 2016, the petitioners seek a declaration that they are not liable to pay any
Customs duty under those notifications. From the submissions advanced by the
Learned Counsel, it would appear that the above notifications are subject matter
of challenge in the petition, however, on a perusal of the reliefs prayed for in the
petition, it emerges that in fact, there is no such challenge to the notifications and
that only a declaratory relief based upon the previous judgment has been prayed
for. In the opinion of this Court, in the absence of any challenge to such notifica-
tions, the question of entering into merits of such submissions does not arise.
Moreover, despite the fact that all these legal aspects were considered by the Di-
vision Bench in the previous judgment, the Division Bench did not deem it fit to
grant the relief prayed for in the petition in its entirety, therefore, it is not per-
missible for the petitioners to seek the relief which though prayed for in that peti-
tion was not granted by the Court, in the present petition in the guise of seeking
a declaratory relief based on the principles enunciated in the said judgment.
23. Apart from the fact that for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the
decision of the Division Bench would not be applicable for any period beyond 6-
9-2010, in the opinion of this Court, when similar notifications were subject mat-
ter of challenge in the writ petition and the Court did not deem it fit to grant re-
lief to the petitioners in respect of such notifications, no reliance can be placed
upon the said decision to claim relief qua other similar notifications. Moreover, as
petitioners have only sought declaratory relief to the above extent, but have not
called in question the validity of the said notifications, granting any declaratory
relief would amount to rendering the said notifications nugatory without there
being any challenge to the same.
24. Insofar as the relief prayed for in respect of Notification No. 9/2016-
Cus., dated 16-2-2016 is concerned, the said notification stands on a different
footing than the other notifications. In this notification, there is no general ex-
emption in respect of goods falling under Tariff Item 2716 00 00 of the First
Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India from the
whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First
Schedule. Under this notification, different rates are provided for goods falling
under Tariff Item 2716 00 00 and it is only in respect of electrical energy originat-
ing from Nepal and Bhutan that the standard rate (paisa per KWh) is nil. Thus, it
is not as if import of electrical energy per se has been exempted from the whole of
the customs duty leviable thereon. This notification is country specific and the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  241