Page 214 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

196 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 196 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Parthiban, J.
ALCATEL SUBMARINE NETWORKS UK LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
W.P. No. 15248 of 2017, decided on 25-4-2019
Demand - Wharfage charges - Petitioner’s chartered cable vessel carry
fiber-optic cable and other submerged equipment to be laid on the sea bed -
Once the Port Trust has declared the vessel itself as a cargo, in view of its ac-
tivity of laying under sea cable, Port Trust Authorities empowered to levy
wharfage against the vessel itself - Manifesting of the vessel as cargo not suf-
fers from any infirmity with reference to the activity of the vessel berthed in
the second respondent Port vis-à-vis the definition of wharfage and other pro-
visions of Major Port Trust Act, 1963 - Demand of wharfage sustainable
against the activity of the vessel belonging to the petitioner at the time when it
was berthed in the second respondent Port - Petitioner cannot claim the bene-
fit of Note 10 under Scale 1-Wharfage of Chapter-III ibid in regard to the past
wharfage levied by the Port Trust in regard to the past wharfage levied by the
Port Trust, Note 10 not being merely a clarificatory order - Scale of Rates of
Chennai Port Trust in Gazette No. 251 dated 27-8-2014 Section 48 of Major Port
Trusts Act, 1963 - Item No. 36A of Schedule of wharfage under Scale 1 of
Chapter-III of Scale of Rates. [paras 15, 16, 18, 20]
Petition dismissed
CASE CITED
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. — (2008) 9 SCC 622
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 8]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 16/2012-Cus., dated 13-6-2012 .................................................................... [Para 6]
REPRESENTED BY : M/s. Mekhla Anand Rupa Roy for M/s. Cyril
Amarchand Mangaldas, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri J. Madanagopal Rao, ACGSC and P.M.
Subramaniam, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order
passed by the second respondent vide demand Letter Bearing No. E2/049/2015,
dated February 6, 2015 for wharfage in relation to the petitioner’s chartered cable
vessel C/S.lle De Batz and consequently, direct the Respondent No. 2 to refund
an amount of INR 2,96,30,784/- (Indian National Rupees Two Crores Ninety Six
Lakhs Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Four only) along with inter-
est at 18 % per annum, as paid by the petitioner under protest on February 17,
2015 towards the wharfage charges illegally demanded by respondent No. 2 in
relation to the petitioner’s chartered cable vessel C/S.lle De Batz.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  214