TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (11) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the order in appeal bearing No. S/49-29/84-M S/49-103/83 Jamnagar dated 29-2-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. 2.  As the party to these appeals are being the same and as they involve common questions of law and facts, they are clubbed together, heard together, hence this common order. 3.  After hearing both the sides, the Bench had rejected both the appeals on 13-9-1988. The reasons for rejection are recorded as under :- As the facts in both the appeals are common it is sufficient if we set out the facts in appeal No. 1679/84. The vessel M.V. Mahabharat of the respondents arrived at Okha on 16-6-1979 with a cargo of 16 tons of copper scrap and 2.018 M.Tons of piwxwa loaded from Kuwait and Doh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India and Another decided on 10-2-1973. He, therefore, urged that the appeals filed by the Collector may be dismissed. 8.  Shri Chakraborty, appearing for the appellant Collector however, sought to make a distinction that the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above referred case is inapplicable to the present appeals. He urged that the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) committed an error in relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court. Having regard to the above contention, we consider it necessary to examine the facts as well as the ratio of the decision of the case before the Bombay High Court. 9.  In the Misc. Petition before the Bombay High Court M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Madras and a further consignment of 340 tons was taken at Madras for Calcutta. The remaining cargo both foreign and Indian was discharged at Calcutta. 11.  Since the vessel lifted larger quantity of goods from Bombay and Madras for delivery at Madras and Calcutta and the local cargo being more than the foreign cargo carried by the vessel between Bombay and Calcutta, the Customs authorities treated the vessel as having entered into coastal run for the purpose of levying duty on ship stores and therefore the duty was demanded. 12.  The Bombay High Court after referring to the provisions of Section 2(7), 2(21) and 2(38) and Sections 86 and 87 rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of the department that because on its j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed). He contended that when the vessel carried some goods from Bombay which were intended for delivery in Madras and Calcutta, it was for the time being engaged in carrying coastal goods. This contention does not appear to me to be correct, because the vessel was principally engaged in delivering cargo intended for Madras and Calcutta which it has taken at ports abroad. If in the course of that voyage, it took some Indian cargo, it could not be said to be engaged in carrying coastal goods, because the main purpose of the voyage was to deliver goods at Indian ports which the vessel had brought from foreign ports. I also do not accept the contention on behalf of the Respondents that because the vessel had some coastal cargo on board along wit....