9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y virtue of having imported the ship which was being broken prior to 28-2-1986 was withdrawn, even while continuing the exemption given to goods obtained from breaking up of the ship on which the duty of customs had been paid at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per light displacement tonnage. The petitioner has paid the duty as also contravailing duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, but had not paid the duty at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per light displacement tonnage. 2. It is not in dispute that the ship which the petitioner had purchased for the purpose of breaking up was purchased in Cochin after that ship had been arrested pursuant to orders issued by the High Court at Bombay and that ship had been brought to sale. After such purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dispute the fact that the Central Government is also subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and that even though the notifications have been issued initially at Delhi which is the seat of the Central Government, nevertheless the notification is meant to have effect throughout the territory of India, and that notification is amenable for being challenged in this Court, even as it is in any other High Court in the country. Counsel's point however is that no cause of action in relation to those notifications has arisen within this State as the ship was purchased at Cochin and the ship continues to lie at Cochin, the customs duty was paid at Cochin and the liability for payment of excise duty also arose at Cochin. The fact that the duty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises at the place where the goods remained in this case the ship which was broken up and the parts removed. The fact that the Collector of Appeals, Madras considered the appeal filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Assistant Collector in Cochin, does not by itself provide a cause of action to question the notifications in this Court, as the Collector's order in appeal not having been challenged here. All that the Collector has done is to affirm the order of the Assistant Collector. For the purpose of considering the prayer of the petitioner, the order of the Collector is of no relevance, whatsoever. His interpretation of the notification cannot bind the Court. 9. This is not a public interest litigation where it can be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
