9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Member (Judicial) Shri Harish Chander on 8th July, 1983. By this application the appellants require the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer to the High Court of Bombay the questions of law set out in paragraph 8(d) of their application. These questions according to the appellants arise out of the Order-in-Appeal No. E.D. (BOM) 21 of 1983. 2. The Corporation have a Marine Oil Terminal at Butcher Island from where bunkers are supplied to both coastal and international vessels. Under AR-4 No. 30, dated 25th October, 1978 the Corporation had supplied under a Shipping Bill 520.208 Kls. Wat 15.C Furnace Oil falling under Tariff Item 10 of the First Schedule appended to the Act as bunkers to s.s. Lajpatrai which was schedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st touch the port within the territory of another country before it could be called as a foreign going port . 3. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of their appeal by the Collector (Appeals) the applicants preferred the appeal E.D. (BOM) No. 21 of 1983 before this Bench. It appears that the appellants contended before the Bench which heard the appeal that the Act did not define a foreign going port , and therefore, it has to be interpreted as understood by a common person. The Corporation appeared to have further contended that the vessel Lajpatrai was an ocean going vessel and it went out to the sea at a distance of 12 nautical miles for the purpose of lighterage work. Thus, she had gone to a place outside India as the mother ship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case too, the vessel cannot be said to be on the foreign run. Besides, the definition of Indian Custom waters under Section 2(28) of the Customs Act includes waters extending to the limit as defined in the Continental Shelf, Exclusively Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976. As per the appellants own admission, the Lokmanya Tilak was within this limit. Hence the Lajpatrai cannot be said as an ocean going vessel on foreign run and is not eligible to the benefit of the bunkers at concessional rates as claimed by the appellants. 4. The questions of law which the appellants herein requires the Tribunal to refer to the High Court are : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords exemption from and before the word duty . 6. At the hearing of the Reference Application the Bench pointed out to Shri Hidayatulla that under Section 35-G reference cannot be made if an order from which the questions of law arise relate among other things to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment, and that since the Appeal No. 21 of 1983 involved a question having a relation to the rate of duty no reference was permissible. It was pointed out to Shri Hidayatulla that the interpretation of the exemption Notification would lead to the determination of the rate of duty payable by the appellants, namely whether it was at the Tariff rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication do not arise then it is open to the Bench to refuse to refer the question to the High Court. Shri Hidayatulla contended that the appeal involved interpretation of the two Notifications issued under the Act and that the Bench which heard the appeal did interpret the notifications, and therefore, the questions set out in the application are questions of law and the Tribunal cannot refuse to refer them to the High Court. For reasons known to Shri Hidayatulla he also referred to the provisions of subSection (3) of Section 35-G of the Act, which conferred a right on the applicant to apply to the High Court if the Tribunal refuses to state the case on the ground that no questions of law arose. 7. We have carefully gone through the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for any foreign port and ocean going vessel on foreign run . The paragraph 2 of His Lordship judgment reads the question involved in this appeal is in narrow compass. The question is as to the meaning to be given to the expression vessel bound for any foreign port and the expression ocean going vessel on foreign run used in the Government Notification dated 5-4-1949 (Ex. A to the petition) under rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules and a Notification dated 9-10-1967 (Ex. D to the petition) issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 3(3) of the Mineral Products (Additional Duties of Excise and Customs) Act, 1958 respectively. 10. When the High Court of Bombay had already interpreted the two expressions and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
