TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant date for the purpose of the levy of duty. Meaning thereby, as observed and held by this Court, the said date can be said to be the deemed import and the person in whose favour the permission is granted can be said to be deemed importer - In the present case, the permission in favour of the SCI was granted on 4-4-1997. In that view of the matter, the respondent cannot be said to be an importer and at the best, SCI can be said to be the importer . The submission on behalf of the Revenue that under MOA dated 22-3-1997, the liability to pay the custom duty was fasten upon the respondent and, therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the custom duty is concerned, has no substance. The MOA is between the two individual part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. C/1510/05 by which the Learned Tribunal allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein and has held that the respondent cannot be said to be an importer of the vessel in question which the respondent purchased for the purpose of breaking and, therefore, not liable to pay the custom duty demanded, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. 2. The relevant facts for determination of the present appeal in nut shell are as under - 2.1 The vessel in question named M.V. Vishwa Yash was manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Shipyards Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporter, the respondent preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, the matter reached upto the CESTAT. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Union of India and Others v. M/s. Jalyan Udyog and Another (1994) 1 SCC 318 = 1993 (68) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.), the Tribunal allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent and held that the respondent cannot be said to be an importer and, therefore, not liable to pay the custom duty. The order passed by the CESTAT has been confirmed by the High Court. 2.5 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of present appeal. 3. Having heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... What is mentioned in the MOA is between the two individual parties and on the basis of that the respondent cannot be held to be importer and liable to pay the custom duty under the Customs Act. The liability to pay the custom duty would be upon the importer under the provisions of the Customs Act only. If ultimately the SCI is held to be the importer and liable to pay the custom duty as per the terms and conditions of the MOA, the SCI can recover the same from the respondent. However, so far as the liability of the respondent to pay the custom duty under the Customs Act is concerned, the same shall be governed by the provisions of the Customs Act only. 6. In view of the above and as observed hereinabove, the permission was granted in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
