Orissa Mining Corpn. vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (OMC), filed two writ petitions challenging demand notices for short payment of customs duty. W.P.(C) No.3098 of 2008 challenged a demand of Rs.1,02,06,478/- dated 15th/27th March, 2007, and a subsequent letter dated 27th November, 2007, after its request for waiver due to loss of chrome concentrate during transit was denied. The High Court granted a conditional stay, requiring OMC to pay Rs.40 lakhs. W.P.(C) No.14358 of 2013 challenged further demands for customs duties on the same ground through notices dated 30th March, 2012, 9th May, 2012, 28th December, 2012, and 26th March, 2013. A conditional stay was granted, requiring OMC to deposit Rs.56 lakhs. OMC confirmed these amounts have been paid, and the stay orders have continued.

Held

The Court directed that if the Petitioner, OMC, files appeals not later than 4th April, 2022, against the aforementioned demand notices, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay explaining the delay due to the pendency of the present petitions, then such applications will be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. The stay orders granted by the High Court in these two writ petitions will continue until the appellate authority passes appropriate orders on the applications for interim relief to be filed by the Petitioner with the appeals. The Court explicitly clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Both writ petitions are disposed of in these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pursue its appeals before the Appellate Authority, given the pendency of the writ petitions and the time elapsed since the impugned demand notices were issued? The petitioner, OMC, sought withdrawal of the writ petitions with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority against the impugned demands and to pursue them in accordance with law. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the issues to be decided, but implicitly consented to the petitioner's request by not opposing it. 2. Whether the High Court should express any opinion on the merits of the case, or should it allow the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies? The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petitions to approach the Appellate Authority. The High Court's order indicates it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, focusing instead on facilitating the petitioner's access to the appellate forum.