9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. [1999 (7) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that Duty has to be paid with reference to the relevant date as per Section 15 of the Customs Act - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/1628/05 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2017 - 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 that arise for consideration are appellant had filed advance noting Bill of Entry No. 7419 dated 19.02.1999 for clearance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein 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 Hon ble Supreme Court as reported at UOI v. Apar Pvt. Ltd. 1999 (112) ELT 3 (SC). 5. On careful consideration of the submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 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. Similarly in Dhiraj Lal (supra), the contention raised that the ship had entered the territorial waters on 20th February, 1989 and that was the relevant d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est 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, therefore, that the ship entered Indian territorial waters on February 20, 1989 and was ready to discharge the cargo is not relevant for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
