Full Judgment
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) In all these matters there is a challenge to notification issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, withdrawing earlier notification issued under the same section withdrawing exemption from payment of duty of customs. The case of the petitioners has been that they had entered into a contract for import of Pvc Resin prior to the date of withdrawing the duty exemption, and that, thereforee, the notification withdrawing exemption was unconstitutional and illegal. A Full Bench of this Court in Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. and mother v. Shri K. Chandramouli, Under Secretary to the Government of India and others, (1983) 1 Del 487, held that notification under section 25(1) were issued in the exercise of soverign legislative powers and the challenge of the petitioners, thereforee, must fail. Later also a Bench of this Court had taken the similar view in Jain Sudh Vanaspati Limited v. Union of India and another, (1983) 2 Del 327. The present petitions, thereforee, stand covered by the aforesaid two decisions. It was submitted that against the judgment of this Court in Bombay Conductors case an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court and where arguments heard and judgment expected. We, however, find that in these cases there is a great deal of difference which favors the revenue, and it is that that in the notification subject-matter of decision in the Bombay Conductors case the first notification was for a specific period and yet during that period it was withdrawn.. In the present cases, no date was given up to which the first notification would continue to operate. It, thereforee, cannot be said that for all times to come the revenue cannot withdraw the exemption. All these petitions must, thereforee, fail.
(2) The judgment in Bombay Conductors case was given on 3 March 1983 and in all fairness the petitioners should have approached this Court to have the matter decided in terms of law laid therein and to have the interim orders vacated. When these petitions were filed Rule D.B. was issued and at the same time under interim orders the petitioners were allowed to clear the goods on the basis of the rates of basic customs duty in force prior to the notification withdrawing exemption and on payment of all other duties, and subject to the petitioners executing a bond supported by bank guarantee for the entire amount of disputed duty. We find in number of similar matters while dismissing writ petitions and vacating the interim orders, this Court has granted interest to the respondents at the race of 17.5% per annum from the date the amount became due till recovery. Following those orders, we will dismiss these writ petitions and would direct that respondents will be entitled to encash the bank guarantee forthwith and they shall also be entitled to recover the amount of duty which was stayed by interim orders with interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum from the date the amount became due till recovery. There will, however, be no order as to costs.