TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f ground rent debited to their marine account. By order dated 12th February, 1996 of this Court the said two Authorities were directed to allow the petitioners to de-stuff the cargo in the 78 containers within one week therefrom and, thereafter, to allow them to remove the containers for their use. The Kolkata Port Trust was also directed to refund the ground rent debited to their marine account, it being held that the said Authority could have no claim for demurrage against them. 2. The Kolkata Port Trust preferred an appeal which was disposed of by order dated 4th December, 1996 directing, inter alia, the order under appeal was set aside and the matter remanded for hearing on affidavits. Further and other directions were made in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. Such detention was challenged successfully in this Court. However, Customs on appeal obtained a finding in their favour that they could not be held responsible for payment of demurrage. On the other hand, the consignees lost interest in freeing the goods. Hence, the Port Authority exercised lien over the goods packed in the containers to seek to recover its claim for demurrage charges from the petitioners who were interested in the release of the containers only. 5. The said order dated 12th February, 1996 was set aside in appeal preferred by the Port Authority since its grievance was, inter alia, the writ Court had disposed of the writ petition without giving the said Authority opportunity of filing affidavit in the matter. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rection upon the Port Authority to appropriate the deposit and accrued interest with further direction upon the petitioners to pay the shortfall on account of demurrage and de-stuffing charges. 7. Mr. Tilak Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied on several decisions but on three of which he laid emphasis. Those are reported in (1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 285 = 1996 (82) E.L.T. 174 (S.C.) (Trustees of the Port of Madras v. K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 168 = 2002 (140) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) (Om Shankar Biyani v. Board of Trustees, Port of Calcutta & Ors.) and (2008) 1 CHN 198 (Natvar Parikh Industries Limited & Anr. v. Board of Trustees for the Port ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... debited to the marine account of the petitioners though made, the petitioner's case urged is that further demurrage charges in addition to those already debited should not be fastened on them. The finding made by this Court by the said earlier order dated 12th February, 1996 was on the basis of facts which could not be disputed by the Port Authority by filing affidavit. In the application of law to those facts regarding whether or not a container owner can be made liable to pay demurrage charges, the disagreement by a Division Bench of this Court by the said unreported judgment dated 10th April, 2003 cannot be found to have the effect of setting aside the finding in the said order dated 12th February, 1996 in view of the judgments in Port ....