Page 192 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

374 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

(i) Femco Filters (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, 2006 (203)
E.L.T. 494 (Tri. - Bang.)
(ii) FAL Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, 2008 (231)
E.L.T. 524 (Tri. - Chennai)
(iii) In Re : Vidarbha Veneer Inds. Ltd., 2007 (220) E.L.T. 589 (Sett. Comm.)
(iv) Philips (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2001 (137)
E.L.T. 697 (Tri. - Mumbai)”.
21. It is submitted that further appeal against the decision of the Tribu-
nal rendered in Femco Fillers (P) Ltd. supra was dismissed by the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Femco Fillers (P) Ltd., 2007 (218) E.L.T.
A124 (S.C.).
22. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 22282 of 2009
was fair enough to bring to the notice of this Court to the following decisions of
the Honourable Supreme Court and various High Courts and that of this Court
which are against the petitioner :-
(i) In Re : SRF Ltd., 2003 (158) E.L.T. 788 (Sett. Comm.)
(ii) Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port), Chennai v. S.R.F. Ltd., 2004 (164)
E.L.T. 412 (Mad.)
(iii) Rexnod Electronics and Controls Ltd. v. Union of India, 2008 (224)
E.L.T. 184 (S.C.)
(iv) Fal Industries Limited v. Directorate General of Foreign Trade, 2014
(306) E.L.T. 58 (Mad.)
(v) Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626
(S.C.)
(vi) Pratibha Syntext Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 (157) E.L.T. 141 (Bom.)
(vii) Commissioner of Customs, Hyderbad v. Pennar Industries Ltd., 2015
(322) E.L.T. 402 (S.C.)
(viii) Commr. of Cus. (Port) v. Settlement Commission, Cus & C. Ex., 2005
(179) E.L.T. 386 (Cal.).
23. The Learned Counsel however submitted that while passing the
above decisions referred to in paragraph 22 above, the Courts have not examined
the issue in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Carbon Ltd.
v. State of Assam, 1997(6) SCC 479 and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in V.V.S. Sugars v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1999 (SC) 2124. He
submits that the authorities under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1992, have no powers to demand interest under the provisions of the For-
eign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
24. It is therefore submitted that the decisions rendered against import-
ers in the cited cases do not constitute a binding ratio decidendi and therefore
prayed for allowing the writ petitions. In this connection reference was made to
the following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court :-
(i) Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Sun Engineering Works (P), 1992
Supp 1 SCR 732
(ii) Krishena Kumar and Anr. Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors, 1990 AIR
1782, 1990 SCR (3) 352

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  192