9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as this case is concerned, the acquisition of liability could have arisen only on the transfer of the vessels for breaking up, which event took place either on 26.02.1998 or thereafter. As on that date, notification No. 133/1987 was no longer in force. This means that as on 26.02.1998 or thereafter, in the absence of notification No. 133/1987 being inexistence, the liability thereunder could not have been acquired or incurred, to attract clause (c) of Section 159A. This, therefore, means that Section 159A would not save the proceedings initiated against the appellant under notification No. 133/1987. If that be so, the whole proceedings initiated against the appellant are without jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of appellant - Customs Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33/87. In the adjudication that was followed, the demand was confirmed. In the further appeal that was filed, the Tribunal passed the impugned order, whereby the order was upheld, but the fine and penalty alone were reduced. This is the background in which the appeal is filed. 4. The first contention raised before us was with respect to the very legality of the proceedings that were initiated against the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, by notification No. 262/58 the ocean going vessels, other than the vessels imported to be broken up, were exempted from the payment of customs duty leviable thereon. It is stated that as per the proviso to the notification, any such vessels subsequently broken up, shall be ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in existence from 23.07.1996 and that therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondent resulting in the impugned order was illegal. 6. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was sought to be resisted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents by relying on Section 159A of the Customs Act 1952, which was introduced by the Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.02.1963. The counsel contends that clause (c) of Section 159A of the Act expressly provides that the rescission of the notification would not affect any liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any notification repealed, superseded or rescinded. It is stated that irrespective of the fact that notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led, superseded or rescinded, then, unless a different intention appears, such amendment, repeal, supersession or rescinding shall nota) receive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the amendment, repeal, supersession or rescinding takes effect; or b) affect the previous operation of any rule, regulation, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any rule, regulation, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded; or d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
