9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, almost immediately after pronouncement of the decision in Chowgule Co. Pvt. Ltd. ( 1987 (2) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). That subsequent development on account of its close proximity of time cannot be overlooked as of no impact. Accept the contention of the owners of the transhippers that such vessels are entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 11-10-1958. - 1502-1504 of 1984 - - - Dated:- 18-3-1998 - M.M. Punchhi, CJI, S. Saghir Ahmad and K.T. Thomas, JJ. [Judgment per : K.T. Thomas, J.]. - Whether vessels which are used as transhippers can also be treated as "ocean-going vessels" is the short but hotly mooted issue involved in these appeals. It was once decided by a Bench of two Judges of this Court in Chowgule Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ors. [1987 (28) E.L.T. 39 (S.C.) = 1987 (2) SCR 351] that such vessels cannot be termed as "ocean-going vessels". Another Bench has now expressed the opinion that the ratio in the above decision requires reconsideration by a Larger Bench. Thus, these matters have come up before us. 2.Some facts necessary for these appeals can be stated thus : Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires the importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r operations. 5.In Chowgule Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), learned Judges have noted that the transhippers involved in that decision were capable of being used as ocean- going vessels and were, in fact, so used during off-seasons when it was not practicable to do topping up operations. Those vessels are not only capable of being used but were actually used as cargo ships during off-seasons. They were structurally and technically competent to go on the high seas and they were certified to be so competent by appropriate maritime authorities. Even in the course of topping up operations during off-seasons, those transhippers have to go into the open sea to reach the bulk carriers. 6.Despite all the aforesaid features learned Judges did not agree with the contention of the importers that those vessels were ocean-going vessels. The following observation is the ratio of the decision : "But in our view, these operations do not make these vessels ocean-going vessels when their primary purpose and the purpose for which they were permitted to be purchased and brought to Indian waters, is to conduct topping up operations in Indian territorial waters and not to serve as ocean-going vessels." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a construction that the commodity should have been completely used up. Even putting the commodity to any type of utility within the territory of India will tantamount to "home consumption". 12.We would now turn to the question whether transhippers are ocean-going vessels? In the order of reference Bharucha and Sen, JJ., have expressed that "there is, prima facie, merit in the submissions on behalf of the owners that an ocean-going vessel is a vessel equipped, crewed and licensed to go out into the ocean, regardless of whether or not it actually does, and that the transhippers as shown by the record, are such vessels; also, they do, in fact go out into the ocean on their day-to-day business to load ore and, in the monsoon, to carry cargo to or seek refuge in other Indian or foreign ports." 13.It may be contextually useful to mention that soon after the decision was rendered by a two Judge Bench of this Court in Chowgule Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a notification was issued on 19-3-1997 by the Government of India in supersession of the earlier notification (which has been extracted above) exempting all the vessels (other than floating structures) from the whole of the duty of cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C 752]. Learned Senior Counsel, who argued for the owners of transhippers on the other hand contended that while interpreting the meaning of words in fiscal connotations, meanings attached to such expressions by people conversant with the subject should normally be adopted. 19.A three Judge Bench of this Court in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India Ors. [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.) = 1976 (2) SCR 98] has observed thus : "It is well established that in interpreting the meaning of words in a taxing statute, the acceptation of a particular word by the Trade and its popular meaning should commend itself to the authority. xxxxxxxxx It is clear that meaning given to articles in a fiscal statute must be as people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject, generally treat and understand them in the usual course. But once an article is classified and put under a distinct entry, the basis of the classification is not open to question. Technical and scientific tests offer guidance only within [limits. Once the articles are in circulation and come to be described] and known in common parlance, we then see no difficulty for statutory classification under a particular entry." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
