9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms duty came into force on such goods from midnight of 27/02/1999. It is also undisputed that Entry Inward of the goods was made in the records on 01.03.1999 for all practical purpose and noted that the goods have been imported into India - no question of refund arises. Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of Revenue. - C/1628/05 - A/85415/17/CB - Dated:- 18-1-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Karl Tamboly, Advocate with Shri R. Sheth, Advocate for appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 287 (Gr.I-NCH)/2005 (JNCH) dated 28.09.2005. 2. The relevant facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI 1985 (22) ELT 644 wherein the Full Bench has held that once the goods entered the territorial waters of India from foreign country or otherwise and was answered in favour of appellant therein. 4. Learned A.R submits that the Entry Inward of the goods was made in the records of the customs authorities on 01.03.1999, which would mean that all personal purpose goods were imported on 01.03.1999 on which date the customs duty was liable to be discharged and the same was correctly discharged hence no question of refund arises. He would submit that the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has been set aside by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods is presented under Section 46 and in the case of goods which are warehoused the relevant date would be the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse. It is no doubt true that in Bharat Surfactants (supra), this Court did observe that it did not express any opinion with regard to the soundness of the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Sylvania Laxman s case (77 Bom. L.R. 380) and in the judgment under appeal but, nevertheless, as we read the said judgment, the conclusion of this Court in Bharat Surfactants was contrary to the view expressed by the Bombay High Court. We do not find that the said decision in Bharat Surfactants can in any way be distinguished from the facts of the present case. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has been given by the proper officer granting entry inwards to such vessel and no order under sub-section (1) shall be given until an import manifest has been delivered or the proper officer is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not delivering it. Granting entry inwards on delivery of import manifest and the date of arrival of the vessel into port admittedly are on March 2, 1989 and the Master of the vessel made a declaration in this behalf that they would discharge the cargo on March 2, 1989 therefore, the relevant date under Section 15(1)(a) is the date on which entry inwards after delivery of import manifest was granted to discharge the cargo for the purpose of the levy of the customs duty and rate of tariff. The contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
