9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublished that Customs duty would be worked out on the basis of the final bid price and that the responsibility of such payment would be that of the Andaman Administration. By his letter dated, 5-6-1987 the Superintendent of Police, Andaman & Nicobar Islands informed the respondent that 51.7% of the bid amount would have to be credited towards customs duty. Subsequently, by a letter dated, 28-6-1989 addressed to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta a demand draft calculated @ 51.7% towards Customs duty in respect of the said three trawlers was sent to the Customs Authority. 3.By the Notification No. 262/58/CUS., dated 11-10-1958 the Government of India exempted ocean going vessels other than the vessels imported for breaking up from the payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case they were broken up the appellants would have to refund the aforesaid duty amount. 7.The reference application from the said judgment and order was rejected by the Tribunal on September 6, 1992 [1993 (64) E.L.T. 344 (Tribunal)]. 8.As the Customs Authority were not complying with the order of the Tribunal by making the refund, the respondents herein filed a writ petition praying for the refund of the customs duty amounting to Rs. 6,81,923/- as a consequential relief in compliance of the Tribunal's order. 9.By the judgment and order dated April 26, 1993 [1993 (67) E.L.T. 248 (Cal.)] Hon'ble Justice Ruma Pal (as her lordship then was) allowed the writ application directing the respondents (Customs Authorities) to make refund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Statute Book. 14. This argument is not acceptable as in that case sub-section (5) of Section 27 would become otiose. Admittedly there is no dispute that customs duty amounting to 51.7% of the bid value in respect of the three trawlers had been collected by the Customs Department and it is evident that the refund claim of the respondent/Company is squarely covered under sub-Section (5) of section 27 of the 1962 Act. 15. Mr. Roychowdhury refers to the following decisions on the question of interpretation of a proviso incorporated to the main section:— 1. AIR 1975 SC 1758 (Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf), 2. AIR 1985 SC 582 (paragraph 9 S. Sundaram v. R. Pattabhiraman), 3. AIR 1949 Privy Council 39 at p. 42 (G.C. in Council v. Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms duty. 20. It is also submitted by Mr. Dutta that there is no gainsaying that the sum of Rs. 6,81,923/- towards duty was realised by the Customs Department in respect of the said three trawlers purchased by the respondent/Company for deep-sea fishing. In view of the Government of India Notification dated October 11, 1958 granting exemption to the ocean going vessels the Notification would be applicable to the facts of the present case and the above benefit cannot be denied to the respondent/Company to which it is entitled. Accordingly it is submitted by Mr. Dutta that the respondent/Company is entitled to the refund of the customs duty which has been admittedly collected by the Customs Department in respect of the aforesaid three trawl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
