LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus APAR PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. APAR PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. JULY 22, 1999 B [B.N. KIRPAL, M. SRINIVASAN ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962 : Ss. 12 and 15-Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation C of imported goods.:_On the date the goods entered territorial waters of India as also on the day they were stored in bonded warehouse, the goods were exempt from basic Customs duty under a notification u/s. 25(1)-When goods were sought_ to be removed from bonded warehouse, exemption notification had been rescinded and exemption granted was withdrawn-Held, duty has D to be paid with reference to the relevant date as per s. 15. E Apar Private Ltd. & Ors., v. Union of India and Others, (1985), 22 ELT 644, reversed. MS. Shawhney v. Mis. Silvania and Laxman Ltd., (1975) 77 Born. L.R. 380, overruled. Mis. Bharat Surfactants (Private) Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Another, [1989) 4 SCC 21 and Dhiraj Lal H. Vohra and Others v. Union of India and Others, [1993) Suppl. 3 SCC 453, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE Jurisdiction : Civil Appeal Nos. 1257-1258 F of 1987. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.85 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 774 and 1215of1979. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor General, Joseph Vellapally, N.K. G Bajpai Dalip Tandon, K.C.Kaushik, P. Parmeswaran, A. Subba Rao, Ms. Sushma Suri, Sunil Dogra, Ms. Monica Sharma, Rajesh Kumar, U.A. Rana Ms. Arshi suhail, (Dinesh Kumar Garg, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, R.K. Agnihotra, Pramod Swarup, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthi, S.N. Bhat, Satish Vig, Sanjeev Sachdeva) (NP), Raj iv K. Garg, N.D. Garg, K.J. John, A.V. Rangam H and A. Rangandhan for the appearing parties. 1056 U.0.1. v. APARPRIVATELTD. 1057 The following Order of the Court was delivered : A . . The judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court reported in 1985 (22) ELT 644 is called in question in these appeals by special leave before us. The question which arose for consideration before the Bombay High Court related to the levy of Customs duty under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. B The brief facts on which the Bombay High Court proceeded were that when the goods of the respondents entered the territorial waters of India from the foreign country as also on the day they were stored in the bonded warehouse, they were wholly exempt from payment of basic Customs duty under a notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of its C powers under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. When these goods were sought to be removed from the bonded warehouse, the exemption notification had been rescinded and the exemption granted thereunder was withdrawn. The case of the respondents was that on the day when the goods entered the territorial waters, that is the point of time when the taxable event under Section 12 occurred; and as the duty was nil on that day, therefore the question of paying any duty with reference to a subsequent point of time, namely, when the goods were removed from the warehouse did not arise. The Bombay High Court following its earlier decision in Shawhney v. Sylvania & Laxman, 77 Born. LR 380, decided in favour of the respondents and held that as the goods were exempt from payment of tax on the day when they entered the territorial waters no Customs duty was payable. D E . . In our o~inion, this *iistion is no longer res integra. At least two F dec1s1ons of this Court, namely, Mis. Bharat Surfactants (Private) Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Another, [1989] 4 SCC 21 and Dhiraj Lal H. Vohra and Others v. Unidn of India and Others, [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 453, were directly concerned with similar contention that had been raised. Dealing with the same, this Court has in clear terms come to the conclusion that what is G relevant is the day on which the bill of entry in respect of goods in presented under Section 46 and in the case of goods which are warehoused the relevant date would be the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse. It is no doubt true that in Bharat Surfactants (supra), this Court did observe that it did not express any opinion with regard to the soundness of the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Sylvania & Laxman's Case H 1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R. A (77 Born. L.R. 380) and in the judgment under appeal but, nevertheless, as we read the said judgment, the conclusion of this Court in Bharat S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.