Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 605 - CESTAT MUMBAIClassification - Pontoon with spuds - Whether to be classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 89.05 eligible for exemption from payment of duty or under Chapter Heading 89.07 attracting rate of duty of 20% ad valorem - Product is a self elevating platform - Held that:- as per HSN explanatory notes, the floating articles which answer to description as self-elevating platform get covered under CH. 8905 and floating structure which has drilling or production platform are covered under 8905.20 and any other floating structure is covered under 8905.90. The factual matrix as reproduced herein indicates that the floating structures as manufactured by the appellant and assembled at site are supported by spuds for resting on the sea bed and can be raised or lowered depending on the water level, is undisputed. Therefore, the claim of the Revenue that the product would merit classification under chapter Heading No. 89.07 is incorrect, as the reliance placed by the department that products are pontoon, is misplaced as the very same explanatory notes exclude pontoons having the character of vessel falling under Heading No. 89.01 or 8905. In the case in hand, it is found that Indian Registrar of shipping has registered the floating structure manufactured by the appellant as “self-elevating platform” and has given at the registration as “AF-SEP-RANI & AF-SEP-RAJA”. We find strong force in the contention raised by the appellant that same product self-elevating platform was imported back into India after its foreign voyages, was sought to be classified by the department under CTH 8905.2020, the Tribunal has upheld classification under 89.05.9090. Therefore, the arguments by the appellant are acceptable as the classification of the same products when re-imported into India after its foreign voyage would be the same as is manufactured. Hence, the classification of the products manufactured by the appellant is to be held as the products falling under 89.05.90. - Decided in favour of appellant
|