Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cc and Ce Vs. Virat Ship Breaking Corpn.

Cc and Ce vs Virat Ship Breaking Corpn.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 13, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33787

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cc and Ce

Respondent

Virat Ship Breaking Corpn.

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(115)LC336Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the revenue seeks enhancement of the amount of redemption fine and penalty levied and imposed upon the respondents herein on the ground that they started breaking of the ship m.v. success hope, imported by them even prior to payment of duty, holding that this amounted to clearance of imported vessel without payment of duty and that vessel was thus liable to confiscation with appropriation of rs. one lakh out of the security in the form of bank guarantee furnished by them, and in terms of the bond executed for provisional release of the vessel and imposing penalty of rs. 50,000/- on the importers.2. none appeared for the respondents in spite of notice; hence we heard the id. sdr and perused the records. we note that there was no removal of the ship out of the customs bonded area. we also note that the explanation of the importers for commencing breaking the ship before payment of duty thereof was the likelihood of damage to the vessel and it was beached about 3000 feet away from their plot and the importers cut it from both sides for lightening the vessel to save it from heavy damage from high tide. the commissioner has kept all these relevant factors in view, before levying fine and penalty. the revenue has not adduced any reasons for increase in the quantum of fine and penalty.we, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue seeks enhancement of the amount of redemption fine and penalty levied and imposed upon the respondents herein on the ground that they started breaking of the ship M.V. Success Hope, imported by them even prior to payment of duty, holding that this amounted to clearance of imported vessel without payment of duty and that vessel was thus liable to confiscation with appropriation of Rs. One lakh out of the security in the form of Bank guarantee furnished by them, and in terms of the bond executed for provisional release of the vessel and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the importers.

2. None appeared for the respondents in spite of notice; hence we heard the Id. SDR and perused the records. We note that there was no removal of the ship out of the Customs bonded area. We also note that the explanation of the importers for commencing breaking the ship before payment of duty thereof was the likelihood of damage to the vessel and it was beached about 3000 feet away from their plot and the importers cut it from both sides for lightening the vessel to save it from heavy damage from high tide. The Commissioner has kept all these relevant factors in view, before levying fine and penalty. The Revenue has not adduced any reasons for increase in the quantum of fine and penalty.

We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial