TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of the Customs authorities by the judgment of a bench of two learned Judges of this Court, in Chowgule Co. Private Limited etc. v. Union of India Ors. - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 39 (S.C.) = 1967 (2) S.C.R. 351, but for the argument advanced on behalf of the owners of the transhippers that the judgment requires reconsideration. 2. The Division Bench said : "The further question is whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Indian port to another or some times to foreign ports, necessarily going out on the high seas. They are structural and technically competent to go on the high seas and they have been certified to be so competent by appropriate maritime authorities. Instead of remaining idle and getting rusty, during off-season, that is when because of inclement monsoon weather topping up operations cannot be do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n going vessel' or `sea going vessel' was a term of art whose meaning was clear and well-known. The Court had recognised the fact that the transhippers were ocean-going vessels in that sense, but had declined to give them the benefit of the notification that exempted ocean going vessels from Customs duty upon the basis that their dominant purpose was not for ocean going. Learned counsel submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted, on the other hand, that the phrase ocean going vessel itself took into account the end purpose. In other words, the exemption notification applied to vessels which actually went out into the ocean. He submitted that, therefore, the test laid down in the two judgments cited above was met. 5. In our view, there is, prima facie, merit in the submissions on behalf of the owners that an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
