2001 INSC 0661
Mustan Taherbhai
v.
Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BHARUCHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Y.K.
SABHARWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN
Civil Appeal No. 1998 of 2000 | 30-08-2001

The order under challenge was passed by the New Delhi Bench of CEGAT. It
relates to the assessment of the vessel Jagat Priya, which was purchased by the
appellants in February, 1993 for breaking. The question before the Tribunal was
whether the appellants were required to pay customs duty when the vessel was
cleared for breaking. It appears from the judgment of the Tribunal that the
matter was argued without reference to facts which are now stated in the special
leave petition, namely, that the vessel was built in India and excise duty was
paid thereon at the time of its clearance. It was delivered to an Indian party. The
contention on these facts is that this was not a transaction of export and import
which would render the appellants liable to the payment of customs duty.

2.Reliance by the Tribunal upon the decision of this Court in the case of Union
of India & Ors. v. Jalyan Udyog & Ors. would be misplaced if these are, indeed,
the facts for that was not a case that related to a vessel that was built in India
and cleared for home consumption. We think it appropriate, in the
circumstances, that the order under challenge should be set aside and the matter
be remanded to the Tribunal to be considered afresh. In so doing, the Tribunal
shall determine, first, the facts and then the law. The Tribunal may take note of
the judgment of the Bombay High Court delivered on 5th February, 1992 in the
case of M/s. Baijnath Melaram v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 1478
of 1983), special leave petitions whereagainst were summarily dismissed. It
may be noted that we express no opinion on the merits of the case on either
side.

3.Having regard to the fact that the jurisdiction in this case now vests with the
Bench of CEGAT at Bombay, the remand is made to that court.

1  SpotLaw
4.Order on the appeal accordingly.
5.No order as to costs.

2                                   SpotLaw