UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus V.M. SALGAONCAR AND BROS. (P) LTD. ETC.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 18-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A also not disputed by the department. Thus considering the question from all 
the different angles, it is reasonable to take the view that merely because 
transhippers are useofor carrying cargo for loading into the bulk carriers 
(those being unable to touch the port) they cannot be excluded from the 
category of Ocean-going vessels. At any rate it has been demonstrated by the 
B Government that it was not very much interested in segregating transhippers 
from the category of ocean-going vessels as the government brought out a 
new notification on 19.3.97, in supersession of the earlier notification 
;... -
covering all vessels including transhippers within the ambit of ocean-going 
vessels, almost immediately after pronouncement of the decision in Chowgule 
and Co. (P) Ltd. The subsequent development on account of its close proximity 
C to time cannot be overlooked as ofno impact. (301-D-E] 
Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1987] 2 SCR 351, overruled. 
2. The question whether a transhipping vessel is an ocean-going vessel 
cannot solely rest on the test of its dominant use to which their owner put 
D them at times. Use may vary from season to season, port to port and also 
manager to managers. So in this area of understanding use of the article 
stands down-staged, and the court must look at to know what actually the 
commodity is. (300-E( 
E 
Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1976] 2 SCR 98, relied on. 
Good)'ear India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997] 5 SCC 752, referred to. 
3. The experession "ocean-going vessels" has not been defined in the 
notification dated 11.10.58. However, Section 2 (21) of the Customs Act, 
F 1962 contains definition of"Foreign going-vessel" and Section 3 (41) of the 
f. 
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 contains definition of "Sea-going Vessels". 
For all practical purposes the words "sea" and ·"ocean" are two expressions 
of the same geographical feature concerning the vast body of salt water one 
side of which appears as horizon "ocean-going vessels" indeed the latter 
G may include the former. How an ocean-going vessel is understood in maritime 
enterprises can be seen from the dictionaries wherein its meaning is given 
as "a ship, capable of crossing oceans"; "a ship designed and equipped to 
).._ 
travel on the open sea"; "a ship suited for travel on the open sea". 
(299-D; 300-H; 301-A-B] 
H 
Shorter Oxford Dictionary; Random House Dictionary, Collins 
U.0.1. v.V.M. SALGAONCAR AND BROS. (P.) LTD. 
295 
Dictionary of English language, referred to. 
4. It cannot be said that the transhippers were not imported for "home 
consumption", as the commodity remains intact without any alteration, even 
after it is put to use. The word "consumption" in fiscal law need uot be 
confined to such a narrow meaning. It has a wider meaning in which any sort 
of utilisation of the commodity would as well amount to consumption of 
article, albeit that article retaining its identity even after its use. In the 
• _.._ 
context in which the expression "home consumption" is used in section 46 
A 
B 
of the Customs Act, it does not warrant a construction that the commodity 
should have been completely used up. Even putting the commodity to any type 
ofutility within the territory oflndia will tantamount to "home consumption". C 
1297-E-F, 298-E] 
Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. v. State of Bombay (now Maharashtra), 
(1961] I SCR 709 and Kathiawar Industries ltd. v. Jajfarabad Municipality, 
AIR (1979) SC 1721, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1502-1504 
of 1984 Etc. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.80 of the Hon'ble Judicial 
Commissioner, Goa, Daman & Diu at Panaji, in Special Civil Application Nos. 
2, 9 and 71- of 1972. 
E 
H.N. Salve, Atul Shetalward, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Shashi Juneja for the 
Appellant in C.A. No. 3409/87. 
M. Gauri Shankar Murthi, Y.P. Mahajan and V.K. Verma for the Appellant F 
in C.A. Nos. 1502-04/84 and Respondent in C.A. No. 3409/87. 
H.N. Salve (Sandeep Narain) for Shri Narain for the Respondent No. 3 
in C.A. No. 3409/87. 
H.N. Salve, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam and Ms. Shobha G 
Verma for the Repondent No. 2 in C.A. No. s. 1502.04/84. 
G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam and Ms. Shobha 
Verma for the Respondent No. 4 in C.A. No. 3409/87. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
THOMAS, J. Whether vessles whk:h are use
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.