Page 223 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] ABB INDIA LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 205

Act in regard to the filling up of import general manifest, nevertheless, the activi-
ty of the vessel itself was rightly manifested as cargo. The petitioner who has
admittedly serviced their client in India by using the vessel itself by laying un-
derneath cable, cannot question the authority of the port trust for declaring the
vessel itself as cargo. No doubt that subsequently an amendment was brought in
where it is mentioned that the wharfage would not be levied on such vessels,
that amendment has put into effect only from 25-3-2015 and would not cover the
earlier period. In any event, the amendment from the future date has not been
put to challenge in the writ petition and therefore, the petitioner cannot take cue
from the amendment and seek for the refund of the amount already paid.
20. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered view that the mani-
festing of the vessel as cargo did not suffer from any infirmity with reference to
the activity of the vessel which was berthed in the second respondent Port vis-a-
vis the definition of wharfage and other provisions of Major Port Trust Act. The
petitioner is unable to point out any apparent error in the order passed by the
second respondent Port Trust towards manifesting the vessel as cargo except
stating that wharfage can be levied only on cargo. Such contention cannot be ac-
cepted by this Court, in view of the activity of the vessel for which the vessel ser-
vices were utilized by way of import by the local client in the Country. On the
whole, this Court does not find anything wrong with the wharfage levied on the
petitioner’s vessel and the demand as such made by the Port authority towards
wharfage, does not suffer from any legal lapses or infirmity.
21. For the above said reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the
present writ petition and therefore, the same is dismissed.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 205 (Kar.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. Sujatha, J.
ABB INDIA LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
W.P. Nos. 53391 of 2017 and 8219 of 2015 (T-RES), decided on 24-4-2018
EXIM - Advance authorisation licence - Redemption - Non-fulfilment
of export obligation - Failure to file copy of bill of export in respect of supplies
made to SEZ - Adequate proof of fulfilment of export obligation available on
record despite this lapse - Consumption certificate placed on record by peti-
tioner indicating details of consumption namely, the supplier name, consignee
name, customer LOA No./PO No., SEZ notification number and date, co-
relating with the SEZ notification number and the advance license number
and date - Consumption certificate/‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’ duly
signed by statutory authorities namely, the Range Superintendent of Central
Excise and the Development Commissioner, SEZ to be accepted as proof of
export especially when such relaxation is extended to similarly situated units

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  223