9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al petitioner company which was a foreign company, was taken over by the Government of India and today the petitioners are a fully owned Government Company. Therefore, today - the fight in the petition is purely academic being between the Union of India and its own company. It seems that when the matter had reached for hearing earlier, this court had adjourned the hearing to enable the parties to sort out the disputes among themselves. However, today at the hearing, we were told by the learned Councel for the Union of India that they have instructions from the Customs authorities to get a decision in the matter. 4. A few relevant undisputed facts on which the petition is based are : At the relevant time, the petitioners were a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and carried on business in India inter alia of buying and selling petroleum products including furnace oil. The first respondent is the Superintendent of Central Excise exercising powers under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (referred to hereinafter as "the Excise Act"). The 2nd respondent is the Union of India. 5. Under the provisions of the Excise Act, excise duty is levied inter alia on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ober, 1967 (Ex. D to the petition) Government of India granted partial exemption of additional duty on furnance oil supplied to bunker ocean going vessel on a foreign run. The extent of such partial exemption has varied from time to time but at all material times, furnace oil supplied to such vessels was exempted from so much of additional duty as was in excess of Rs. 21.15 per kilolitre at 15° C. 11. Government of India also issued a similar notification as regards coastal vessels being Notification, dated 21st January, 1967 (Ex. D I to the petition) providing that furnace oil supplied to coastal vessels falling under item 10 to the First Schedule of the Excise Act would be exempted from the whole of the additional duty. By subsequent Notifications, the said exemption has been made partial and the extent of such partial exemption has varied from time to time but the same, as in force at all material times, relevant exempted coastal vessels from so much of the additional duty as was in excess of Rs. 21.15 per kilolitre. 12. The petitioners supply bunkering fuel consisting of furnace oil and/or marine diesel oil, used for the actual purpulsion and/or for running auxiliary engine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enture" which was bound for Restanura in Persian Gulf via. Kandla and Okha, s.s. "Warwick Trader" bound for Restanura viz. Madras and Calcutta and s.s. "World International" bound for Bahrain via. Kandla and Okha in which demand notices were in identical terms save and except that the amounts sanctioned in the demand notices in each case varied. The petitioners have impugned in the petition letters and demand notices issued in all the said cases. 15. Before dealing with the basic question involved in this case, in order to understand the contentions raised, it would be convenient to set out first the said notifications so far as they are relevant, under which the petitioners claimed rebate of or exemption from excise duty and additional duty. 16. The first notification, dated 5th April, 1949 (relates?) to vessels bound for any foreign port or to ocean going vessel on foreign run, in reference to the definition of 'Foreign going vessel' under Section 2(21) of the Customs Act. 17. The learned Judge further held that even if reliance on the definition of 'Foreign bound ship' under Section 2(21) of the Customs Act were permissible, still in the present case all the vessels could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the said notification, dated 5-4-1949 issued under the Excise Act were enacted many years earlier than the Customs Act of 1962. It is, therefore, difficult to see how an expression in the earlier statute could be interpreted with reference to an expression in the later statute. Secondly the expression in S.2(21) of the Customs Act, viz. "Foreign going vessel" was not the same as the expression in the said notification viz. "Vessel bound for foreign port" or "Ocean going vessel on a foreign run", so that the meaning of the said expressions in the notifications could be ascertained from the definition of an altogether a different expression viz. "Foreign Going Vessel" appearing in S.2(21) of the Customs Act. It is not the case of the respondents nor is there any material on record to hold that the said three any material on necessarily mean one and the same thing. 23. In that view of the matter, the said impugned demand notices appear to have been based altogether on extraneous considerations and that by itself was sufficient to set aside the same. 24. The next question then is what meaning, was to be attributed to the expression "Vessel bound for foreign port" or "Ocean going ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the machines was not prohibited under the said conditions of licence. Negativing the said contention, the court observed at page 1289 of the report :- "In our opinion dictionary meanings, however, helpful in understanding the general sense of the words, cannot control where the scheme of the statute or the instrument considered as a whole clearly conveys a somewhat different shade of meaning. It is not always a safe way to construe a statute or a contract dividing at by a process of etymological dissection and after separating words from their context to give such words some particular definition given by lexicographers and then to reconstruct the instrument upon the basis of those definitions. What particular meaning should be attached to words and phrases in a given instrument is usually to be gathered (??) contended that if however a vessel bound for foreign port were to carry cargo to an Indian port and therefore engage in coastal trade, even temporarily at least for that limited period it would cease to be vessel bound for foreign port or on a foreign run and would become a country vessel. In short, the contention is that a vessel to be a vessel "bound for foreign port" or " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that, the said contention did not appear to be correct because the vessel was principally engaged in delivering cargo intended for Madras and Calcutta, which it had taken at ports abroad and if in the course of its voyage if the ship took some Indian cargo, it would not be said to be engaged in carrying coastal goods because the main purpose of the voyage was to deliver goods at Indian Ports which the vessel had brought from foreign ports. 31. The said observations of the court, if at all would go against the submission of the learned Councel for the Union of India in this case, instead of supporting him. The said observations would show that any vessel which was principally a foreign going vessel, would not lose its character even if it temporarily engaged in some coastal trade mainly with a view not to waste its carrying capacity. 32. Since we are not accepting the said contentions raised by the learned Councel for the Union of India and since we are upholding the conclusions of the learned Judge on the above contentions, we do not think it necessary to consider various other contentions that have been raised by the parties to the Petition. 33. The result, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
