SCA/10906/1994 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10906 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Sd/- ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ===================================================== UNIVAC CORPORATION & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s) ===================================================================== Appearance : MR DHAVAL K.SHAH FOR MR PARESH M DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR KETAN A DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, ===================================================== SCA/10906/1994 2/5 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 28/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 This petition was preferred with the following prayers : “(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order No.5/11-12/CA/90-EP.I and 5/4/CA/91/EP.I/683 dated 26th October, 1993 (Annexure 'M' hereto) passed by the second respondent herein; (B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, holding and declaring that the SCA/10906/1994 3/5 JUDGMENT goods manufactured by the petitioners i.e. (i) Flourescent Starter Switches (Glow Switches), (ii) Neon Indicator Lamp (NE2) and (iii) Flicker Lamp, were electronic items, components and devices eligible for Cash Compensatory Support benefit as well as 10 per cent Additional Exim Scrip benefit available to electronics items and directing the respondents herein to grant these benefits to the petitioners;”. 2 On 22.04.2008 after hearing the learned Counsel of both the sides the Court made the following order: “This petition involves the dispute between the petitioner – assessee and the respondent – Department as to whether the following goods manufactured by the petitioner, namely, (i) Flourescent Starter Switches (Glow Switches), (ii) Neon Indicator Lamp (NE2), and (iii) Flicker Lamp, were electronic items, components and devices eligible for Cash Compensatory Support benefit as well as 10 per cent Additional Exim Scrip benefit; the stand of Revenue being that these goods do not classify under the entry “electric light fitting” or entry “electronic instruments, components, SCA/10906/1994 4/5 JUDGMENT etc.” On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on the opinion rendered by Local Classification Committee (LCC), while on behalf of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2 – Authority, reliance has been placed on the opinion of Head Quarter Classification Committee (HQCC). However, neither side is in a position to point out the basis for constitution of such Committees, the powers available to such Committees, and the legal sanctity of the opinion rendered by such Committees. In the circumstances, as a final opportunity to permit the learned Counsel to prepare themselves, the matter to be listed on 28th April, 2008”. 3 Today also neither side is in a position to point out the basis for constitution of the aforesaid Committees and the legal backing to the opinions rendered by such committees. Both the sides are respectively relying on opinions rendered by one or the other committee. Nothing has been brought on record or pointed out to establish supremacy or SCA/10906/1994 5/5 JUDGMENT superiority of one or the other committee. In any view of the matter, the issue raised in the petition involves disputed questions of fact even if one goes by the opinions tendered by the two committees, on the assumption that such opinions have a valid basis in eyes of law. 4 In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (D.A.Mehta, J.) Sd/- (Z.K.Saiyed, J.) M.M.BHATT