Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.01 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Others vs Chowgule And Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 13 December, 1984

Jalyan Udyog And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 June, 1985

Mr. Bhatt placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No. 273 of 1979 (Union of India and Ors. v. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. decided by K. Madhava Reddy, C.J., and B.C. Gadgil, J., on 13th December, 1984). In that case, the vessel in question was imported into Mormugaon Port on 15th October, 1969. At that time, it was an oil tanker. With some modifications, the vessel was converted for use in the operation known as "the topping up operations". It was then named as Maratha Tran-shipper and used to carry iron ore from the Port to the large vessels standing a bit away from the harbour and loading the iron ore in the said larger vessels. It was held that in such a case, a bill of entry was required to be filed for importing the said vessel. That question, we are afraid, is completely different from the question before us, and hence that decision is of little value in determining this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - M H Kania - Full Document

Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 1987

44. It was already seen that the petitioners filed the Bill of Entry in respect of the 'S. S. Maratha Transhipper' on the 12th day of March, 1987, and that although another Bill of Entry was filed on 20th March, 1987, the Bill of Entry filed on 12th March, 1987, was acted upon and was never discarded by the second respondent. The Bill of Entry as regards the 'S. S. Maratha Transhipper' was thus presented before the coming into force of the Notification No. 133 of 1987 which took place on 19th March, 1987. Further, it is not disputed that M/s. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed the Bill of Entry in respect of their transhipper 'Pryamvda' on 20th April, 1987, specifically claiming the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 133 of 1987, and that, at the time of the passing of the order dated 26th March, 1987, the wreck of the sunk 'S. S. Maratha Transhipper' was being removed. These bare facts negative the contention of the petitioners that they and M/s. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. were equals and were equally situated and, therefore, on this ground alone, the grievance of discrimination fails, being pertinent to note that the Notification No. 262 of 1958 had to be applied as a whole. Support to this view is found in Union of India and others v. Shri Ramniwas Chaudhury and in Ram Niwas Chaudhary v. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd. and others Mr. Andhyarujina, however, further contended that even if that is not so, in any event, a wrong committed does not warrant another on the ground of discrimination committed and in this connection placed reliance in Union of India and others v. Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. . The learned counsel contended that exemption from duty was erroneously given to M/s. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., for chargeability and quantification of duty are different things and occur at different points of time. Chargeability is fixed or attached to the goods when the taxable event occurs, i.e. when the goods cross the territorial waters, whereas the quantification takes place when the Bill of Entry is presented. Therefore, he urged, a charge that is attached to the goods at the point of import does not cease to operate when the Bill of Entry is presented for quantification of the rate of duty under Section 15 of the Customs Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1