TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condition of pre-deposit as provided for under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal No.C/505 to 513/2006 were listed today for final hearing and the Bench called for Appeal No.C/503 & 504/2006, which pertains to the impugned order but were not listed today. Hence, all these appeals are taken up together for disposal as the issue involved in all the appeals is identical, therefore, we are disposing of all the appeals by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of appeal No.C/513/2006 are taken. The facts of the case are that the appellant are the regular importers of crude oil through Cochin Port. In respect of imports affected during January 2004, the appellant filed an Into-bond Bill of Entry and a continui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ala and during the pendency of that application before the Cabinet Committee, the Commissioner vide common Order-in-Appeal dated 18.8.2006 proceeded to dismiss the appeals on the ground that appellant had not complied with the condition of pre-deposit as provided under Section 129E of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant have filed the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by misconstruing Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that as per Section 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x court decision, which is reproduced herein below: "15. We are afraid that each one of the reasons given by the Tribunal is incorrect in law. The Tribunal has lost sight of the following first principles when it arrived at the aforesaid conclusion. First, it has lost sight of the fact that a levy in the context of import duty can only be on imported goods, that is, on goods brought into India from a place outside of India. Till that is done, there is no charge to tax. This Court in Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1999 (8) SCC 744 = 1999 (113) E.L.T. 358 (S.C.), stated that this takes place, as follows :- "It was further submitted that in the case of Apar (P) Ltd. [(1999) 6 SCC 117 = JT (1999) 5 SC 161] this Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect the quantity of goods at the time and place of importation. A bill of lading quantity therefore could only be validly looked at in the case of a purchase tax but not in the case of an import duty. Thirdly, Sections 13 and 23 of the Customs Act have been wholly lost sight of. Where goods which are imported are lost, pilfered or destroyed, no import duty is leviable thereon until they are out of customs and come into the hands of the importer. It is clear therefore, that it is only at this stage that the quantity of the goods imported is to be looked at for the purposes of valuation. Fourthly, the basis of the judgment of the Tribunal is on a complete misreading of Section 14 of the Customs Act. First and foremost, the said Section is a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Customs Valuation Rules. Indeed, this Court has, in Collector v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2001 (131) E.L.T. A87 (S.C.) stated: "The Appellate Tribunal in its order in question on the issue as to which of these two viz. the quantity of crude oil as revealed by the Vessel's Ullage Survey Report or the quantity determined by dip measurement in the shore tanks as revealed by the Cargo Intake Certificate, should be adopted for the purpose of assessment of duty of the imported crude oil, following its decision in the case of Commissioner v. HPCL [2000 (121) E.L.T. 109 (Tribunal)] had held that quantity of crude oil shown in Ullage Survey Report relates to point of time prior to actual unloading of goods and as such is not the c....