Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.36 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Section 21 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 46 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Khanbhai Essofbhai vs Union Of India on 1 January, 1800
8. The attempt of Revenue, as revealed in the impugned order and
as argued by Learned Authorized Representative, is to demonstrate
that the vessel, having breached the statutory obligation to be
presented for assessment, as prescribed in section 46 and section 17 of
Customs Act, 1962, on first arrival in Indian waters by arrogating
eligibility in the impugned exemption notification, should, by taking
that temporary privilege to its logical conclusion, be assessed to duty
as applicable to ships for breaking. Urging that the law permits only
one of these two alternatives, reliance was placed on the decision of
the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Khanbhai Essofbhai v. Union
of India [1989 (41) ELT 239 (Bom)]. Continuing in that vein, it was
submitted by Learned Authorized Representative that the exemption
in the notification is effective only as long as the ship is a conveyance
and that any other disposal would render it liable to duty that was
foregone initially.
Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987
10. That MV Maratha Transhipper had not been imported in 1969
for breaking up is not in doubt; the dispute was over the claim that it
was an 'ocean going vessel.' Further discussion of that aspect, as well
as that of purported deferment of duty, is academic as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court did, in Chowgule & Co Private Ltd Etc v. Union of
India & others [1987 SCR (2) 351], adjudge the eligibility for
exemption from duty at the time of import. The position of law
settled, in re Jalyan Udyog, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the
exemption applies unconditionally at the time of import and that the
vessel, if intended to be broken, must be subject to assessment
separately as though imported afresh for that purpose. The concern
here is, thus, restricted to the continuing operation, and admissibility,
of the notification in 1985 when the vessel was wrecked.