# • LIMITED • , '· v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1976] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 489
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-04-30
- **Bench:** P. N. Bhagwati, A. C. Gupta, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/limited-v-union-of-india-anr-7153
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Customs Tariff-Item 72cJ)-Scope of.
lnterprctation-"_Not otherwise specified" occurring in "n1achinery and not
otherwise specified"-Meaning of.
Administrative law-Reasoned order by Tribunals esselitial.
Under item 72(3) of the First Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff,
component parts of machinery as defined in item nos. 72, 72(1) and 72(2)
and not otherwise specified are chargeable to
customs
duty. Item
73(21)
comprises of "electric motors, all sorts, and parts thereof".
On the stren~th
of a licence for importing "complete continuous filament Rayon Plant-with
spares and accessories". certairi spinning frames excluding pot motors were imported from Japan but not motors were imported from Germany by the appellants.
The customs authorities accepted the claim of the appe1lants that the consigntnent of pot motors fell within item 72(3) and charged import duty accordingly.
Son1etime later. the Assistant Collector of Customs, claiming that customs duty
on pot motors was shoit levied as they fell within item 73(21) called upon
the appellants to pay the difference, against which the appellants made a
representation to the Assistant Collector. But the Assistant Collector held
against the appellants without giving any reasons. The appellants thereafter
filed a repre.se.ntation to the CoHecto.r but he held that since the spi,np.ing
frames and the pot motors Were imported under''sep'arjlte contracts from se'parate
countries the two consignments could not be treated as one article and hence
rejected the representation. The appellants thereupon applied to the Govern·
ment of India in revision but the revision application was also rejected.
AllowinR the appeal to this Court.
HEW: (1) (i) Item 72(3) is a specific item covering pot motors as
B
c
D
E
against item 73(21) which is a general item. Pot motors were, therefore,
F
asses~:1h1e under the former and not under the latter. The original assessment
of the A':~ic;tant Collector was correct and the subsequent demand of differential
duty which \Vas confirmed by the Collector and the Government of Jndia
was unlustified.
(ii) Pot motors fell within the description given in iteD). 72(3).
They were specially rlesigned f9r use in spinning machines for manufacturing
ravon thrl!ad. and
th~y. were indubitably essential for the working of the
rayon spinning machines and were incapable of being used for any other
purpose.
They were, therefore~ clearly component parts of the r3yon spinning
G
machines.
[495-D, 494Al
(2) The argument of the respondents that if any component parts of
1nachinerv were specifically dealt with in any other item, they would go out
-of item 72(3) and since pot motors were electric motors \Vithin item 72(21)
they were not cov.ered by item 72(3) Wai. clf,arly unsustainable. As a matte,r
of both gram1nar ap.d language the words "not otherwise specified" cannot 'be
read as qualifying "component parts". They qualify "machinery". Otherwise
the coniunction "and" would have no meaning. The Sentence \voulJ. become
H
ungrammatical if the words "iiot otherwise specified" \\'ere read to govern
"component par.ts".
The description of the component parts which follows the
words "not otherwise specified" starts with the words "namely" which shows
that it is intended to be a complete description of the component parts covered
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
A
by this item and that would also not actually fit in with component parts-
"not otherwise specified".
Therefore, pot motors could not be held to fall
outside that item because they were otherwise specified in ilem 73(21). [494HJ
(3)(a) Where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial
function it must record its reruiom in support of the order it makes.
Every
quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons.
[4950]
M. M. Desai v. The Testee/s Ltd. & Anr. CA 245 of 1976, decided on 17th
B
Pee, 1975, referred to.
c
D
(b) If courts of law were to be replaced by administrative authorities and
tribunals and with

## Text

4 89
SIEMENS ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CO. OF INDIA
A
•
LIMITED
•
,
'·
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
April 30, 1976
[P. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
Customs Tariff-Item 72cJ)-Scope of.
lnterprctation-"_Not otherwise specified" occurring in "n1achinery and not
otherwise specified"-Meaning of.
Administrative law-Reasoned order by Tribunals esselitial.
Under item 72(3) of the First Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff,
component parts of machinery as defined in item nos. 72, 72(1) and 72(2)
and not otherwise specified are chargeable to
customs
duty. Item
73(21)
comprises of "electric motors, all sorts, and parts thereof".
On the stren~th
of a licence for importing "complete continuous filament Rayon Plant-with
spares and accessories". certairi spinning frames excluding pot motors were imported from Japan but not motors were imported from Germany by the appellants.
The customs authorities accepted the claim of the appe1lants that the consigntnent of pot motors fell within item 72(3) and charged import duty accordingly.
Son1etime later. the Assistant Collector of Customs, claiming that customs duty
on pot motors was shoit levied as they fell within item 73(21) called upon
the appellants to pay the difference, against which the appellants made a
representation to the Assistant Collector. But the Assistant Collector held
against the appellants without giving any reasons. The appellants thereafter
filed a repre.se.ntation to the CoHecto.r but he held that since the spi,np.ing
frames and the pot motors Were imported under''sep'arjlte contracts from se'parate
countries the two consignments could not be treated as one article and hence
rejected the representation. The appellants thereupon applied to the Govern·
ment of India in revision but the revision application was also rejected.
AllowinR the appeal to this Court.
HEW: (1) (i) Item 72(3) is a specific item covering pot motors as
B
c
D
E
against item 73(21) which is a general item. Pot motors were, therefore,
F
asses~:1h1e under the former and not under the latter. The original assessment
of the A':~ic;tant Collector was correct and the subsequent demand of differential
duty which \Vas confirmed by the Collector and the Government of Jndia
was unlustified.
(ii) Pot motors fell within the description given in iteD). 72(3).
They were specially rlesigned f9r use in spinning machines for manufacturing
ravon thrl!ad. and
th~y. were indubitably essential for the working of the
rayon spinning machines and were incapable of being used for any other
purpose.
They were, therefore~ clearly component parts of the r3yon spinning
G
machines.
[495-D, 494Al
(2) The argument of the respondents that if any component parts of
1nachinerv were specifically dealt with in any other item, they would go out
-of item 72(3) and since pot motors were electric motors \Vithin item 72(21)
they were not cov.ered by item 72(3) Wai. clf,arly unsustainable. As a matte,r
of both gram1nar ap.d language the words "not otherwise specified" cannot 'be
read as qualifying "component parts". They qualify "machinery". Otherwise
the coniunction "and" would have no meaning. The Sentence \voulJ. become
H
ungrammatical if the words "iiot otherwise specified" \\'ere read to govern
"component par.ts".
The description of the component parts which follows the
words "not otherwise specified" starts with the words "namely" which shows
that it is intended to be a complete description of the component parts covered
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
A
by this item and that would also not actually fit in with component parts-
"not otherwise specified".
Therefore, pot motors could not be held to fall
outside that item because they were otherwise specified in ilem 73(21). [494HJ
(3)(a) Where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial
function it must record its reruiom in support of the order it makes.
Every
quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons.
[4950]
M. M. Desai v. The Testee/s Ltd. & Anr. CA 245 of 1976, decided on 17th
B
Pee, 1975, referred to.
c
D
(b) If courts of law were to be replaced by administrative authorities and
tribunals and with the proliferation of administrative law, they may helve to be
so replaced, it is essential that adrninistrative authorities and tribunals should
accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their
orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders
made by them.
The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an
order is lite the principal of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of naturaf
justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be
observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would
not satisfy the requirement of law.
[496B-DJ
In the instant case the Assistant Collector did not give any reasons in
SUPPort of his order which was in. plain disregard of the requirernent of law.
The reao,;on given by the Collector was hardly satisf~ctory.
His order could
have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that
the case had been pa>perly considered by him. The Government of India
too failed to give any reasons in support of its order rejecting the revision
application. [496-HJ
..
I
•
[The Court expressed the view that it would be desirable that in cases
arising under customs and excise laws an independent quasi-judicial tribunal
is set up which would finally dispose of the appeals and revision applications
under these laws instead of leaving the determination of such appeals to
the·
Government of India.
An independent quasi-judicial tribunal would inspire
..,
greater confidence in the public mind.]
[496F]
E
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 1277 of 1968.
F
G
H
(Appeal by special leave from the order No. 2674 of 1967 of the
•
Ministry of Finance, Government of India)
•
Hardev Singh, lshwar Chand Jain and R. S. Sodhi; for the Appellant.
S. N. Prasad and S. P. Nayar, for respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J. This appeal by special leave raises a short question
as to what is the correct amount of import duty chargeable on pot
motors when imported separately from Rayon Spinning frames : do
they fall within Item 72(3) or Item 73(21) of the First Schedule to
the Indian Customs Tariff?
The facts giving rise to the appeal are
few and may be briefly stated as follows:
Some time in 1956 a licence for setting up a plant for manufacture
of Rayon was granted to one Kesoram Industr~es & Cotton Mills Ltd.
under the Industries Development and Regulat10n Act, 1951.
Smee
the machinery and equipment required for setting up the plant were
not available in India Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd.
applied for an import licence and on. the ~asis" of this appli?ation,
import licence was granted to them for 1mportmg complete contmu?us
filament Rayon plant-with spares and accessories" ?f the CIF V~lue
of Rs. 5 .50 crores from general currency area excluding South Afnca.
'
t
...
•
J
,
..
•
•
SIEMENS ENGG. 00. v. UNION (Bhagwati, !.)
491
It appears that Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. imported, on
A
the strength of this import licence, Rayon Spinning frames, excluding
pot motors, from Japan, but so far as pot motors were concerned, they
authorised the appellants to import from .Germany 4000 of these
motors for initial installation of the Spinning frames.
Pursuant to
the authority so given, the appellants placed orders for 4000 pot
motors with manufacturers in Germany and imported the same
in
seven different consignments under the
Import licence of Kesoram
B
Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd.
These seven consignments arrived
at Calcutta port between September and December 1961.
The
appellatnts claimed before the Customs authorities at the time of
assessment of import duty on these seven consignments that pot
motors imported by them fall within Item 72(3) of the First Schedule
to the Indian Customs Tariff and were chargeable to import duty under
that item at the rate of 15 percent of their accepted value.
This claim
C
was accepted by the Customs authorities and these seven consignments
were allowed to be cleared on payment of import duty under Item
72(3).
However,
within a
short time thereafter, the
Assistant
Collector of Customs
issued seven separate notices of demand in
respect of these seven consignments claiming that customs duty at the
rate of 15 per cent had been short levied, because pot motors were
\!Ssessable at the rate of 20 per cent and requiring the appellants to
I>
pay up the difference within 15 days from the date of demand under
s. 39 of the Sea Coustoms Act, I 878.
The appellants sent representations against these notices pointing out that-and we are quoting
here from the representation dated 8t'h December, 1961 which is :
"These pot motors are vital component pan of the Rayon
Spinning machines already imported and are not in excess
of the quantity required for the first installatieln of the said
plant.
The pot motors are required for 24 Spinning frames
having 2 sides each.
On each side of these frames, 66
motors are connected.
Hence total initial requirement of
pot motors for running 24 frames is 3168.
In view of
general experience with this type of plant approximately
25 % additional motors are
required for trial
runs
and
commissioning 4000 Nos. of not motors should, therefore, be supplied for first. installation of the Rayon plant.
These
pot motors are of very
high speed and
are
specially designed for use in spinning frames for manufacturing rayon thread.
They run at 7700 RPM and are
designed for 11 rated voltage of 130 V. at 130 cycles per
second for use in circuits of less than 10 amps. As
such, these motors can in no circumstances be used for any
other purpose excepting as stated above.
The accessories of these motors are specially designed
to suit particular size of spinning pots as well as spinning
chambers.
The smooth running
of these' motors
is
achieved after a great research by using flexible elastic and
hollow shaft, special rubber bushings for support as well as
specially designed bearings, to take care of severe stresses,
E
F
G
H
A
B
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
which are normally encountered by these motors during
operation.
Hence, it is inevitable that au1y deviation in the design
of the above component parts would mean defeatina the
purpose for which these motors are meant.
"'
In view of the above, these motors callllot be classified
other tl:Pan an integral part of the Rayon Spinning plant.
We, therefore, claimed
as assessment of duty under
....
proviso 72(3) at the tinle of clearing."
1 •
C
The appellants did not receive any reply from the Assistant
Collector in regard 'to these represe1'1tations for a period of about
three years and hence they thought that their representations had
been accepted and the demand for differential duty had been dropped.
This, however, turned out to be a vain hope, for seven communications
dated 19th January, 1965 were received by the appellants from the
Assistant Collector stating that the demand for differential duty in
n
respect of each of the seven consignments was confirmed and would
be enforced in due course if the differential duty was not paid by the
appellants.
Each of those seven
communications contained
an
intimation that "an appeal against this decision lies to tihe Appellate
Collector within three months hereof''.
The appellants, however, did
not prefer an appeal to the Collector and instead tried to persuade
the Assistant Collector to change his opinion by pointing ou'.
the
E
relevant facts.
It appears that in the meantime the Assistant
collector recovered the aggregate amou11t of the differential duty from
the
deposit account of the appellants.
The appellants once again
made a representation to the Assistant Collector and requested him
to refund the amount of differential duty
collected by hinl but the
representation did not meet with any favourable response from the
Assistant Collector.
The appellants ultimately filed a representation
F
to the Collector on 15th July, 1965 setting out their case in regard to
the assessment of customs duty and pointing out that the original
assessment of customs duty made under Item 72 ( 3) was correct and
that the differential duty had been 'lvrongly recovered from them.
This representation was treated by the Collector as a revision application against the orders of the Assistant Collector and on this application, the Collector made an order which was conveyed to the appelG
!ants by the Assistant Collector by his letter dated 23rd December,
H
1965.
The Assistant Collector pointed out that the Collector had
"-examined the merits of the case in question llild it is his
consideration that the duty was correctly chargeable because
the Spinning Machinery excluding the pot motors were being
imported under one contract from Japan and the pot motors
were being imported under another contract from Germany.
Separate importation under
a separate
contract from a
separate country would not justify
treatment of the two
consignments as one article, when the goods are not specified
•
•
•
'
,JI
I
<
•
•
..
•
SIEMENS ENGG. co. v. UNION (Bhagwati, !.)
493
in the Tariff as one article.
Therefore, he does not see any
A
reason to revise the Assistant Collector's order concerning
the demands."
The appellants thereupou preferred a revision
application
to
the
Government of India, but by a short and pithy order dated 23rd
September, 1967, the Government of India rejected the revision application stating that they had carefnlly considered the revision application
Be
but saw no reason to interfere with the order Jl"'ISSed by the Collector.
This led to the filing of the present appeal against the order of the
Government of fadia with special leave obtained from this Court.
Though the appellants, initially, when the hearing of the appeal
commenced, raised two or three contentions against the validity of the
order of the Government of India confirming the demand for differenc
tial duty, they ultimately pressed oiaJy one contention and that related
to the category in which the pot motors imported by the appellants
fell.
The Assistant Collector originally assessed these pot motors
to customs duty at the rate of 15 per cent of their accepted
V"alue
under Item 72(3), but later, demanded differential duty from the
appellants on the footing that these pot motors were really asse>ssable
at the rate of 20 per .cent of their accepted value under ltem 73 (21)
D·
and'this demand was confirmed by the Collector in revision and on
further revision, by the Government of India.
The appellant disputed :he correctness of these orders and contended that the original
asse.sment made by the Assistant Collector was proper and the demand
for differential duty was unjustified, because the correct item under
which these pot motors were assessable was Item 72 (3), and not Item
73 (21),
Item 72 (3), as it stood at the material time. was in the
E
foll owing terms :
"72(3) Component parts of machinery as defined 'in Item
Nos. 72, 72(1) and 72(2) and not otherwise specified, essential for the working of the machine or apparatus and have
been given for that purpose some -special shape or quality
which would not be essential for their use for any other purpose but excludiag small tools like twist drills and reamers,
F
dies and taps, gear cutters and hacksaw blades :
provided tlrat articles which do not satisfy this condition
shall also be deemed to be component parts of the machine
to which they belong if they are essential to its operation
and are imported with it in such quantities as may appear
to the Collector of Cnstoms to be reasonable.",
G
while Item 73(21) comprised "Electric motors, all sorts, and parts
thereof."
The competition was between these two Items and the
question is which of them covered pot motors
imported by the
appellant.
Now, pot motors imported by the appellants were clearly compo-
,,.,..
nent parts of Rayon Spinning machines and this was not am! indeed
H
could not be disputed on behalf of the respondents.
Since Rayon
Spinning machines were admittedly textile machinery as defined
in
Item 72 ( l), these pot motors were covered by the opening part of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
Item 72(3), namely, "component parts of machinery as defined in
Item Nos. ---72(1)---".
Moreover, these pot motors were clearly
and indubitably essential
for the working
of the Rayon Spinning
machines and, as pointed out by the appellants in their representation
dated 8th December, 1961, they were "specially designed for use in
spinning frames for manufacturing rayon thread" and for the purpose,
they were given special shape and quality which was not only not
essential for their use for any other purpose but actually rendered them
incapable of being used for any other
purpose.
This position, as
pointed out by the appellants in their representation dated 8th December, 1961, was not disputed either by the Assistant Collector in his
communication dated 19th January, 1965 or by the Collector in his
order dated 23rd December, 1965 rejecting the representation of the
appellants and the Government of India also did not controvert this
position in its order dated 23rd September, 1967.
If the Assistant
Collector or the Collector or the Government of India did not accept
the facts set ont in the representation of the appellants dated 8th
December, 1961, we should have expected a clear statement to that
effect in the orders of these authorities.
The Assistant Collector
maintained sphinx like silence and preferred not to give any reasons
for confirming the demand for differential duty.
The Collector was
a little Jess reticent.
He briefly gave a reason for confirming the
orders of the Assistant Collector. but that reason had nothing tel do
with the nature, quality or condition of the pot motors.
What it
said was this, namely, that the pot motors were imported under a
separate contract from Germany
while the
Spinning
machinery
excluding pot motors were imported from Japan and that did not
"justify the treatment of two consignments as one article."
The
Government of India also did not articulate its reasons while rejecting
the revision application of the appellants, but since it confirmed the
order of the Collector, we may presume that the same reason which
prevailed with the Collector appealed to the Government of India.
It will, therefore, be seen that at no stage was the factual position in
regard to the pot motors, as set out in the representation of the appellants dated 8th December, 1971, disputed by the Assistant Collector
of Customs or the Collector or the Government of India.
The pot
motors, therefore, clearly fell within the description given in Item
72(3),
The respondents,
however, leaned heavily
on the words "not
otherwise spcified" in item 72(3) and cO'ntended that even if the pot
motors were component parts of Rayon Spinning machines, they were
not covered by Item 72(3), since they were otherwise specified in
item 73 (21).
The argument of the respondents was that if any
component parts of machinery were
specifically dealt with in any
other item, they would go out of Item 72(3) and since pot motors were
electric motors within Item 73(21), they were not covered by Item
72(3). This argument is clearly unsustainable.
It seeks to read
the words "not otherwise specified" as qualifying "component parts"
but that is plainly incorrect as a matter of both grammar and language.
Structurally, the conjunction 'and' joins the two clauses "as defined
in Item Nos. 72, 72(1) and 72(2)" and "not otherwise specified" and
since the former qualifies 'machinery', the latter also must be read as
\
.... .
,
'
. ..
r
•
..
-
,
SIEMENS ENGG. co. v. UNION (Bhagwati, J,)
4 95
A
B
doing the same duty.
What Item 72(3) contemplates are component parts of that machinery which is defined in Item Nos.
72, 72 ( 1)
and 72(2) and which is
not otherwise specified.
The words 'not
otherwise specified' do not qualify "component parts" : they qualify
machinery'.
Otherwise,
the conjunction
'and'
would
have no
meaning.
In fact, the sentence would become ungrammatical if the
words "not otherwise specified"
were read to govern
"component
parts".
This construction also receives support from the description
of the component parts
which follows the words 'not
otherwise
specified'.
This description starts with the word 'namely', which
shows that it is intended to be a complete description of the component
parts covered by this item and that would not contextually fit in with
"component parts --- not otherwise specified".
There can be no doubt
that on a plain grammatical construction, the words "not otherwise
specified" qualify "machinery" and not "component parts" and, therefore, the pot motors imported by the appellants, which satisfied the
other requirements of Item 72(3) could not be held to fall outside
that Item, because they were
otherwise specified in Item 73 (21).
Item 72(3) is a specific Item '-':hich covers these pot motors as
against Item 73 (21) which is a general item and hence it must be held
that these pot motors were assessable under Item 72 (3) and not under
Item 73 (21).
The original assessment of these pot motors made by
the Assistant Collector was, in the circumstances, correct and the
subsequent, demand of differential
duty
made
by the
Assistant
Collector and confirmed by the
Collector in revision and by the
Government of India on
further revision,
was
unjustified.
The
orders made by the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Government of India confirming the
demand for differential duty would,
therefore, have to be
quashed and set aside and the amount of
differential duty recovered from the appellants pursuant to these orders
would have to be refunded to the appellants .
c
Before we part with this appeal, we must express our regret at the
manner in which the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Government of India disposed of the
proceedings before them.
It
is
incontrovertible that the proceedings before the Assistant Collector
arising from the_ notices demanding differential duty were
quasijudicial proceedings and so also were the proceedings in revision before
the Collector and the Government of India.
Indeed, this was not
disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
It is now settled law that
where an authority makes an order in
exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in
support of the order it makes.
Every quasi-judicial order must be
supported by reasons.
That has been laid down by a long line ~f
decisions of this Court ending with N. M. Desai v. The Testeels Ltd.
& Anr. (')
But,
unfortunately,
the Assistant Collector did
not
choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty.
This was in plain disregard
of the requirement of law.
The Collector in revision did give some
sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his
order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in their representa-
(1) C. A. 245 of 1970 decided on 17th December, 1975.
D
E
F
G
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
A
tion dated 8th December, 1961 which were repeated in the subsequent
representation dated 4th June, 1965.
It is not suggested that the
Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a court of law.
But the
order of the Collector could have been
a little more explicit and
articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had
been proper! y considered by him. If courts of law are to be replaced
B
by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds
of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative
Jaw,
they may
have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities
and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the pcfsons
sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and
explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them.
Then alone
administrative
authorities
and
tribunals
exercising quasi-judicial
c
function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility
with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process.
The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an
order is,
like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural
justice which must inform every quasi-.iudicial process and this rule
must be observed in its proper spirit llnd mere pretence of compliance
with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. The Government
D
of India also failed to give any reasons in support of its order rejecting the revision application.
But we may presume that in rejecting
the revision application, it adopted the same reason which prevailed
with the Collector.
The reason given by the Collector was,
as
already pointed out, hardly satisfactory and it would, therefore, have
been better if the Government of India had given proper and adequate
reasons dealing \vith the arguments advanced on bch~llf of the nppclE
!ants while rejec:ing the revision application.
We hope and
trnst
that in future the Customs authorities will be more careful in adjudicating upon the proceedings which come before them and pass properly reasoned orders, so that those who are affected by such orders
are assured that their case has received proper consideration at the
hands of the Customs authorities and the validity of the ad indication
made by the Customs authorities can also be satisfactorily tested in a
F
superior tribunal or court.
In fact, it would be desirable that in cases
arising under Customs and Excise laws an independent quasi-jHdicial
tribunal,
like
the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal or the Fore:gn
Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, is set up which would finally
dispose of appeals and revision applications under these laws instead
of leaving the determination of such appeals and revision applications
to the Government of India.
An independent quasi-judicial tribunal
G
would definitely inspire greater confidence in the public mind.
H
• We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the orders passed by
the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Government of India
demanding differential duty from the appellants and direct the Government of India to refund to the appellants the amount of differential
duty recovered from the appellants in respect of the seven consignments of 4000 pot motors imported by them.
The respondent will
pay the costs of the appeal to the appellant.
P.B.R.
Appeal allowed.
'
'
.,
I
•
'