TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tue of notification, became leviable on 4-4-1997 as laid down by the Apex Court. Merely because the Memorandum of Agreement provides for the purchaser to discharge the liability on behalf of the seller, the liability in law which is fastened on 4-4-1997, cannot become the liability in law of the respondent. - 1430 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2008 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. Shri Y.N. Ravani, for the Appellant. Shri Paresh M. Dave, for the Respondent. [Judgement per : D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)].- Appellant revenue has proposed the following three questions originally when the appeal was filed. I. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents in whose hands the vessel was actually broken up and who had fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent and not the date of beaching at Alang and on that date the importer would be Shipping Corporation of India? VII. Whether as provided under Section 15 ibid, rate of duty in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 45, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section shall be the rate in force and accordingly in the instant case effective rate would tariff read with Sr. No. 298 of Notification No.16/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 subject to condition No. 65? 2. The facts, which are not disputed, are that the respondent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on 22-3-1997 with M/s. Shipping Corporation of India for purchase on a vessel named "SM.V. Vishwa Yasha" for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleaded that the Bill of Entry had been filed by the respondent and hence the respondent was required to be treated as an importer within the meaning of provisions of section 2(f) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). That even as per Memorandum of Agreement between the respondent and Shipping Corporation of India vide clause 3, payment of customs duty was the responsibility and liability of the buyer respondent. It was therefore, urged that the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that respondent was not liable to pay customs duty as an importer. It was further contended that the Tribunal had also placed reliance on its own decision in case of Commissioner of Customs v. Devkrupa Ship Breakers [2007 (210) E.L.T. 591 (Tri.-Mum.)] wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The notification, on which revenue is placing reliance, reads as under: (Department of Revenue) CUSTOMS New Delhi , the 19th October, 1965 S.O. 3183 - "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25, read with sub-section (3) of section 160, of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in suppression of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.118, dated the 13 June, 1965, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts any ocean-going vessel manufactured in a warehouse in accordance with the provisions of section 65 of the said Act, from the duty of customs leviable thereon when clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
