9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that two deep sea fishing trawlers of foreign origin were imported by M/s. Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. ('Matsyafed' for short). Subsequently, Matsyafed invited tenders for the disposal of the trawlers and being the successful tenderer, the trawlers were sold to the appellant on 26.02.1998. According to the appellant, finding the trawlers to be not seaworthy, they sent it for breaking up. Later, show cause notice was issued to the appellant under Section 124 of the Customs Act for confiscating the vessels under Section 111(o) of the Act and imposing penalty on the appellant under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt fresh Bill of entry to the Collector of Customs, and thereupon such goods shall be chargeable with the duty which would be payable on such goods as if such goods were entered for home consumption under Sec. 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 to 1962), on the date of the presentation of such fresh Bill of Entry to the Collector of Customs for the purpose of break-up of such goods." It is pointed out that notification No. 133/87 was again rescinded by notification No. 47/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996. 5. It is stated that the appellant purchased the trawlers in question only on 26.02.1998. According to them, it was thereafter that they found the vessels to be not seaworthy and decided to send the same for breaking up. It is stated that by tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his notification was rescinded by notification No. 47/96 dated 23.07.1996. 8. Admittedly, acquisition of the vessel by the appellant was only on 26.02.1998 and they transferred the vessel for breaking up still later. The question is whether such transfer of the vessel by the appellant for breaking up would attract the liability under notification No. 133/87. In our view, the answer should be in the negative for the reason that as on the date of acquisition of the vessel or its transfer for breaking up, notification No.133/87 was already rescinded by notification No. 47/96. Section 159A of the Customs Act, 1962 reads thus: "159-A. Effect of amendments, etc., of rules, regulations, notifications or orders.- Where any rule, regulation, notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a right, privilege, obligation or the liability is acquired, accrued or incurred under any notification superseded or rescinded. Insofar 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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
