9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Ship Breaking Yard, Bhavnagar, are not importer within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962? (2) In the absence of specific condition (like condition no.65 of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., dated 2-3-2000) stipulating the filing of fresh Bill of Entry for breaking up and creating a legal fiction in the Notification No. 163/65-Cus., dated 16-10-1965 as amended vide Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that no question of law much less substantial questions of law were involved in the appeal. 4. With respect, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court. In our opinion, in view of the judgment of this court in Union of India Ors v. M/s. Jalyan Udyog Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 318, the four questions of law which were raised by the Revenue before the High Court do arise from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er]? (3) The relevant date on which the vessel is broken up would be the date on which it is taken for beaking i.e. the date of transfer from the Shipping Corporation of India to the respondent and not the date of beaching at Alang and on that date the importer would be Shipping Corporation of India [Para (xii) of Page 10 of CESTAT Order]? Apart from the above, whether, on the facts and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
