CC vs Shree Dev Krupa Ship Breaking

B.J. Shethna, J.—This Appeal was dismissed, initially, in absence of learned Counsel Shir Malkan for the Appellant. Thereafter, on Civil Application, being filed, it was restored and heard today itself.

The Commissioner of Appeal decided the Appeal in favour of the respondent, against which the Appeal filed by the Department was dismissed by the CESTAT. Hence, this Appeal.

Following questions of law have been framed in this Appeal by the Appellant at Page 27, Para 6 :

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble Tribunal was right in law and facts in holding that�

(1) M/s. Shree Dev Krupa Ship Breaking, Sosio Ship Breaking Yard, Bhavnagar, are not importer within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 (Para ix) of Page 8 of CESTAT order)?

(2) In the absence of specific condition (like condition No. 65 or Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., dated 1.3.2000) stipulating the filing of fresh Bill of Entry for breaking up and creating a legal fiction in the Notification No. 163/65-Cus., dated 16.10.1965 as amended vide Notification No. 129/86-Cus., dated 17.2.1986 cannot be retrospectively extended and posted to be read in Notification No. 163/65-Cus., dated 16.10.1965 as amended (Para (x) of Page 9 of CESTAT Order)?

(3) The relevant date on which the vessel is broken up would be the date on which it is taken for breaking i.e. the date of transfer from the Shipping Corporation of India to be respondent and not the date of beaching at Along and on that date the importer would be Shipping Corporation of India. (Para (xii) of Page 10 of CESTAT Order)?

Apart from the above, whether, on the facts & in the circumstances of the case:

(4) As provided u/s 15 ibid, rate of duty in the case of goods entered for home consumption u/s 46, 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.

None of the aforesaid questions can be said to be question of law, much less substantial questions of law-Appeal u/s 130 of the Customs Act can be entertained by this Court only if it is satisfied that substantial questions of law are involved in it. At the cost of repetition we may state that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, is involved in this Appeal which requires to be decided by this Court in this Appeal. Having carefully gone through the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT, we are of the considered opinion that even otherwise no interference is called for by this Court in this Appeal.

In view of the above discussion, this Appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Civil Application No. 141 of 2004 is dismissed as the main Appeal is dismissed.