1. This is an Appeal from the decision of the learned Single Judge granting reliefs to the petitioner following decision of Division Bench in Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. S. R. Patankar, [1988 (33) E.L.T. 77]
2. Mr. Devdhar on behalf of the appellants has argued that since the Division Bench had applied the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India [1985 (22) E.L.T. 644] it would be appropriate to apply the decision of the Full Bench. He has submitted that the present case was not a case where the goods were totally exempt from the levy of the duty which came to be imposed in the interegnum between the first bringing of the goods within the territorial waters and second entry after the ship had once left Bombay.
3. Our attention is drawn to the second hear-note. However, the reasoning or ratio is to be found in paragraph 41 of the Judgment in Apart Pvt. Ltd. case and the subsequent Division Judgment in Gin Vanaspati Ltd. case has applied the reasoning correctly. That very ratio of the Division Bench has been followed by the learned Single Judge. We find no substance in the Appeal and hence the appeal is directed to stand dismissed.
4. In conclusion, it may be mentioned that the case before us is even stronger than the case before the Division Bench, inasmuch as, in Jain Sudh Vanaspati case the vessel had entered territorial waters of India and then gone to Karachi, a port in foreign country. Even then the taxable event was held to be when the vessel had first entered the Bombay and had gone to Haldia and Calcutta (both ports in India) and with the express permission of the Customs authorities.
5. Hence, the Appeal is directed to stand dismissed. Appellants to pay the costs of the respondent fixed at Rs. 300/- Mr. Mehta submits that though the order was passed in June, 1989 and more than five months have elapsed, the appellants have not complied with various parts of the order. Liberty to the respondent to take out Motion for contempt if so advised before appropriate Court.