Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 2008

B G Exploration And Production India ... vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary & 8 on 8 May, 2015

According to the learned counsel, in view of the provisions of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1956 and notification issued thereunder, the customs frontier is extended. The provisions of the Customs Act are imported into the provisions of the CST Act for determining whether the sale is in the course of import. It was submitted that the movement of goods from the Continental Shelf or Exclusive Economic Zone to Hazira onshore being within the customs frontier, is not import into the territory of India and the sales in question are, therefore, chargeable to sales tax under the GST Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aban Lloyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) to submit that the point is concluded against the petitioner in paragraph 77 of the said decision.
Gujarat High Court Cites 143 - Cited by 2 - H Devani - Full Document

Cma Cgm Asia Shipping Pte Ltd vs Union Of India on 16 September, 2022

146. At any rate, the issue is not whether India can and, in fact, has asserted its sovereignty over areas beyond the territorial waters. The issue in the instant case is the authority of Parliament to extend the laws beyond its territorial waters and the jurisdiction of this Court to examine the legality of such exercise. Even on the facts of Aban Loyd Chiles case [Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. v. Union of India(2008) 11 SCC 439] , it can be noticed that the operation of the Customs Act was extended beyond the territorial waters of India and this Court found it clearly permissible although on the authority conferred by the Maritime Zones Act. The implications of Article 245(2) did not fall for consideration of this Court in that judgment.
Karnataka High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Republic Of Italy Thr. Ambassador & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 September, 2012

99. This brings me to the question of applicability of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code to the case in hand, in view of Sections 2 and 4 thereof. Of course, the applicability of Section 4 is no longer in question in this case on account of the concession made on behalf of the State of Kerala in the writ proceedings before the Kerala High Court. However, Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code as extracted hereinbefore provides otherwise. Undoubtedly, the incident took place within the Contiguous Zone over which, both under the provisions of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, and UNCLOS 1982, India is entitled to exercise rights of sovereignty. However, as decided by this Court in the Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. case (supra), referred to by Mr. Salve, Sub-section (4) of Section 7 only provides for the Union of India to have sovereign rights limited to exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of the natural resources, both living and non-living, as well as for producing energy from tides, winds and currents, which cannot be equated with rights of sovereignty over the said areas, in the Exclusive Economic Zone. It also provides for the Union of India to exercise other ancillary rights which only clothes the Union of India with sovereign rights and not rights of sovereignty in the Exclusive Economic Zone. The said position is reinforced under Sections 6 and 7 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, which also provides that India’s sovereignty extends over its Territorial Waters while, the position is different in respect of the Exclusive Economic Zone. I am unable to accept Mr. Banerji’s submissions to the contrary to the effect that Article 59 of the Convention permits States to assert rights or jurisdiction beyond those specifically provided in the Convention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 11 - A Kabir - Full Document

Delhi Duty Free Services Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & ... on 28 February, 2023

24. ***** The issue of taxable territory in relation to Customs and Central Excise duties was clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aban Lyod Chiles Offshore Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2008(227) ELT 24 (S.C.) ***** Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in holding/describing the duty free shops at departure module of International 29 ST/51853/2021 & 3 Others Airport as in non taxable territory, which is undoubtedly within the taxable territory of India in view of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Finance Act, 1994 and also the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Aban Lyod Chiles Offshore Ltd.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document

M/S Greatship(India)Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Mumbai-I ... on 28 April, 2015

6. The purpose and scope of territorial waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Act, 1976 (for short Maritime Zones Act) fell for consideration before the apex Court in the case of Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. vs. Union of India 2008 (227) E.L.T.24 (S.C.). The question that arose for consideration was as to whether the territorial jurisdiction of India extends to the areas in the Continental Shelf and Economic Zone of India and as to whether mineral oil extracted from these areas can be treated as import liable to customs duty and as to whether goods supplied to these zones can be treated as export liable to duty. Considering the entire provisions of the said Act, the Apex Court observed thus :-
Bombay High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 17 - B R Gavai - Full Document

K.D.Devarajan vs The Director General on 22 January, 2020

13. The other contention urged is regarding the binding nature of the STCW contention and other international treatises. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India, makes it obligatory for the State to endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another. It is submitted that STCW Convention being an international treaty, the Government of India is under a constitutional obligation to give effect to the resolutions of the Convention. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Aban Loyd Chiles Off Shore Limited v. Union of India [(2008) 11 SCC 439], T.M.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. WA.768 & 784/18 17 Union of India [(2012) 4 SCC 362], Commissioner of Customs v. G.M.Exports [(2016) 1 SCC 91] and International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers v. Aditya Pandey [(2017) 11 SCC 437], in support of this contention. Per contra, the learned CGC would submit that international treaties would not have the force of law unless and until they are enacted in the form of municipal laws.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Larsen And Tourbo Ltd on 21 June, 2016

In the case of Murli Manohar and Co. and anr. vs. State of Haryana and anr (supra), the Apex Court did observe that there can be movement of goods by virtue of local sale, inter-State sale or sale in course of export outside the territory of India. It was observed that sale effected by the assessees in the circumstances, which have been set out in the earlier portion of the judgment,must fall in one of the three categories. It was observed that "We are unable to conceive of a fourth category of sale, which could be neither a local sale nor an inter-State sale nor an export sale." Much was sought to be made out from these observations of the Apex Court by the counsel for the State. It was contended that since the sale can fall in only one of the three categories, in the present case, the Court must hold that it is either inter-State sale or a local sale since the contention that it was an export sale has not been pressed. We are, however, unable to accept the contention. The observations of the Apex Court cannot be seen in isolation and it is Page 15 of 19 HC-NIC Page 15 of 19 Created On Thu Jun 23 02:32:43 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/484/2016 ORDER well settled that it is not observation of the Court but what the Court holds in the fact situation of a given case which is the ratio that can be applied in similar set of facts and circumstances. In the decision of Murli Manohar and Co., the Apex Court was not considering the sale in the nature that we are confronted with. It was not a case where the sale of goods occasioned the movement from the Indian State to a territory which is not part of India and which is for the limited purpose of claiming rights to exploit the natural resources and exploration etc. the Indian Union claims limited sovereign rights.
Gujarat High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs Mumbai on 17 July, 2014

5.4. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. (supra) where in the honble apex Court held that Article 127 of UNCLOS, 1982 prohibits Customs duty imposition only in case goods are brought into country for proceeding to another country. In all other cases, it makes imposition of duty permissible. In the present case, the appellant has not brought the 19,739.50 meters of line pipes for taking out to another country. They are meant for laying in the non-designated area and, therefore, in view of the above legal position, the said goods are also liable to duty.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next