(1.) THE Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. , is the appellants in these related writ appeals. They arise from proceedings respectively for the issue of a writ of certiorari and a consequential writ of mandamus, seeking of quash the order of the superintendent of Central Excise, enforcing a particular levy, and to restrain the authorities to forbear from collection. The proceedings were dismissed by srinivasan, J. The facts are fully set forth in the affidavit of the Assistant Manager of the appellant fir, and the judgment of the learned Judge. The essential facts are as follows:-
(2.) IT appears, that certain coastal vessels of the appellant firm, called from a port or ports in India, touching the port of Colombo (Ceylon) en route and finally entered Tuticorin harbour. It is not in dispute that, in addition to the oil which these vessels held, in their containers when they set sail, which would of course, be oil taken from an Indian port or ports on which duty had been paid, these vessels bunkered a certain quantity of oil at Colombo port. When these vessels came into Tuticorin Harbour, the Customs authorities demanded customs duty under S. 20 of the Sea Customs Act 8 of 1878, to which we shall refer later, on the quantity of oil bunkered at Colombo, without allowing any deduction for oil that might have been consumed by the concerned vessel, during the voyage from colombo to Tuticorin. The appellant firm protested against this levy, since the quantity consumed between Colombo and Tuticorin was perfectly ascertainable, and claimed a deduction therefor. The correspondence before us proves, without any doubt that the Central Board of Revenue accepted this contention, in the first instance, and restricted the customs duty to the balance remaining, after deducting the oil consumed between Colombo and Tutocorin from the quantity of oil bunkered at colombo. By a letter dated 25-1-1962, the Under-Secretary to the Central Board of Revenue told the appellant firm that necessary instructions had been issued to the Customs authorities in this matter. The demand was revised, and the appellant firm paid the import duty on the balance.
(3.) BUT, subsequently, the Superintendent of Central Excise (3rd respondent)changed his attitude altogether. He communicated a decision that the import duty had to be collected "on the entire quantity of oil bunkered at the intermediate foreign port". He added that in view of this decision, the question of deducting the quantity of oil fuel towards the voyage consumption of the vessel from the total quantity of the bunkers lifted at Colombo does not arise". There was a subsequent communication to the same effect, and all representations of the appellant firm to the Central Board of Revenue were of no avail. The question argued before us, as before the learned Judge, is the legality of the present levies. In this context, we might dispose of at the outset itself, an argument that, having originally decided to accept the contention of the appellant firm, the Board of Revenue or the customs authorities should not have gone back on that decision. This matter is covered by S. 39 (1) of the Sea Customs Act, which may be extracted and set for the hereunder:-"