ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted, 3. The High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that no question of law much less substantial questions of law were involved in the appeal. 4. With respect, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court. In our opinion, in view of the judgment of this court in Union of India & Ors v. M/s. Jalyan Udyog Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 318 , the four questions of law which were raised by the Revenue before the High Court do arise from the order of the Tribunal and required consideration by the High Court. Accordingly, we hold that the following questions whether :- (1) M/s. Shree Dev Krupa Ship Breaking, Sosio Ship Breaking Yard, Bhavnagar, are not importer within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 [Para (ix) of Page 8 of CESTAT order]? (2) In the absence of specific condition (like condition no.65 of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., dated 2-3-2000) stipulating the filing of fresh Bill of Entry for breaking up and creating a legal fiction in the Notification No. 163/65-Cus., dated 16-10-1965 as amended vide Notification No. 129/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 cannot be retrospectively extended and posted to be read in notification No.163/65-Cus., dated 16-10-1965 as amended [para (x) of page 9 of CESTAT Order]? (3) The relevant date on which the vessel is broken up would be the date on which it is taken for beaking i.e. the date of transfer from the Shipping Corporation of India to the respondent and not the date of beaching at Alang and on that date the importer would be Shipping Corporation of India [Para (xii) of Page 10 of CESTAT Order]? Apart from the above, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. (4) As provided under Section 15 ibid, rate of duty in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section shall be the rate in force and accordingly in the instant case effective rate would tariff read with Sr. No. 298 of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 subject to condition No. 65, are substantial questions of law and need consideration at the hands of the High Court. No. 298 of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 subject to condition No. 65, are substantial questions of law and need consideration at the hands of the High Court. We accordingly remit the matter back to the High Court for recording its opinion on these questions in accordance with law. Nothing said herein be taken as an opinion on the merit of this case and the High Court will be at liberty to decide the questions arising from the order of the Tribunal in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in these appeals. 5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Appeals disposed off.