(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the notification issued under the provisions of the Central Excise Act withdrawing exemption which had been granted under an earlier notification, such withdrawal having resulted in the petitioner becoming liable to pay the duty which he could not have had to pay had the earlier notifications been continued unaltered. THE first of the notifications relied on by the petitioner was issued on 20-8-1986 by a later notification of 27-3-1987 the benefit which the petitioner could claim by virtue of having imported the ship which was being broken prior to 28-2-1986 was withdrawn, even while continuing the exemption given to goods obtained from breaking up of the ship on which the duty of customs had been paid at the rate of Rs. 1, 400/- per light displacement tonnage. THE petitioner has paid the duty as also contravailing duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, but had not paid the duty at the rate of Rs. 1, 400/- per light displacement tonnage.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the ship which the petitioner had purchased for the purpose of breaking up was purchased in Cochin after that ship had been arrested pursuant to orders issued by the High Court at Bombay and that ship had been brought to sale. After such purchase the petitioner had questioned the levy of customs duty in the High court at Kerala but later withdraw the petition and paid the duty. The ship admittedly had reached the Cochin Harbour prior to 28-2-1986. The petitioner was not called upon to pay excise duty from that date till 27-3-1987 as during that period the exemption notification issued on 20-8-1986 was in force.
(3.) IT is not possible to accept the submission of learned counsel for the Central Government that notifications issued by it are only to be questioned in the High Court at Delhi or in the High Court within whose jurisdiction some thing was done in relation to the notification without any qualification. If it is possible to establish a reasonable link between the notification impugned and some act which is germane any material having occurred within the State that would be sufficient to establish that a part of cause of action has arisen within the State. That test however has not been met by the petitioner on the facts of this case.