Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (4) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was imported by the Shipping Corporation of India, the writ petitioner, from Poland in or about April 1959. Under item No. 76(i) of the Schedule-I of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 as amended in 1949, customs duty was leviable on all ships, boats and vessels imported into India either for the purpose of navigation or for breaking up. On October 1,1958, the Central Government issued the following notification :- "G.S.R. 930 - In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 23 of the Sea Customs Act, 1978 (8 of 1978), as in force in India and as applied to the State of Pondichery, The Central Government hereby exempts ocean-going vessels imported into India or the State of Pondichery, other than vessels imported to be broken up, from the whole of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 118 (Cal.) = 1983 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes, page-6, the duty was assessed under the Customs Tariff Item 76(i) of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, which was applicable on the date of importation of the said vessel into India in the year 1959. Such duty was duly paid and upon payment thereof, the said vessel was cleared out of the Customs Control on August 12, 1985 and made over to the purchaser of the said vessel for scrapping. 5. On or about 14th January 1986, the respondent No. 3 issued a notice of demand alleging that the customs duty amounting to Rs. 54,97,265.40 was short levied in respect of the vessel "Vishva Jyoti" and that the said amount was the differential amount that has been short levied as the vessel appears to be classifi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Ram Niwas Chaudhury v. Union of India, rate of duty prevailing at the time of original Importation of the vessel would be applicable in terms of Notification 262-Cus., dated 11-10-1958. The subject vessel was, therefore, assessed at the rate as prevalent in 1977-78 when the vessel as imported and registered to Indian Flag. Importers paid duty vide B/E I-1105 dated 27-3-1985. (c) Subsequently it was considered that goods should have been assessed @ 30% plus 50% plus 12%. As such there was short levy to the extent of Rs. 38,54,778.61. However, it is evident from the documents that letter dated 15-1-1986 was issued to the Mogul Line Ltd. requesting them to pay the differential duty. Therefore, letter for voluntary payment was issued possib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed by Ram Niwas Chaudhury has been wrongly characterised as "Bill of Entry". A Bill of Entry was required to be filed under the Customs Act at the time of importation of goods into India. Indeed a Bill of Entry was filed in that case when the vessel was imported into India in 1963. Therefore, the statement of particulars filed by Ram Niwas Chaudhury could not be considered to be Bill of Entry. The Division Bench further observed that if the vessel was imported into India in 1963 for the purpose of breaking up, she would have been chargeable with duty that was prevalent on that date. The proviso refers to the payment of such duty that was in force on the date of importation of the vessel. Since the vessel was undoubtedly imported in 1963, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cean-going vessel was not required to file a Bill of Entry and that the vessel in question was an ocean-going vessel notwithstanding that its main purpose was topping up bulk carriers of iron ore. Supreme Court held that the two vessels in question were "goods for home consumption" and could not be treated as going vessel for the purposes of the Customs Act. Since they were brought to India primarily for the purpose of topping up operations. I do not understand as to how this decision is of any assistance in deciding an altogether different controversy involved in the present case of the writ petitioner. 9. I find that the aforesaid decision is applicable on all fours in the present case. Admittedly the Motor Vessel "Visva Jyoti" was impor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates