TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the second mentioned appellant, M/s. Travancore Cements Pvt. Ltd. confiscating one dredger seized from them but giving an option for their release subject to payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of confiscation. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. On behalf of M/s. Travancore Cement Pvt. Ltd., learned Counsel, Shri Joseph Kodianthara submitted that they had placed orders with appellant No. 1 for construction and delivery of one dredger and two barges. For the dredger they had paid the price charged including Central Excise duty as shown in the relevant Gate Pass. If, in fact, their supplier had not paid any Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Pune Collectorate had issued a Trade Notice 32/84 clarifying that the term ocean going vessels figuring in the aforesaid exemption Notification will include, inter alia hopper barges for the disposal of dredged material, tugs and dredgers. The goods in question were thus eligible for exemption from duty. He referred to the Tribunal decision in Vipul Shipyard v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1985 (19) E.L.T. 122 wherein it was held that barges are ocean going vessels for the purpose of exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification 55/75, dated 28-2-1982. In conclusion learned Counsel stated that the appellant is a Private Limited Company promoted by technocrats who were not conversant with excise matters. There was no i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor has gone by the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Chowgule Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 401 for deciding the question as to what is an ocean going vessel. This decision which is of the year 1987 is to be taken as superseding the Trade Notice issued by the Collectorate in 1984. Applying the said judgment to the present case and taking into account the fact that the dredger was for use in Kottayam lake to dredge lime shells, the same cannot be treated as ocean going vessel. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The Collectorate Trade Notice relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant (Bharati Shipyard Private Ltd.) is specifically with reference to exemption Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat a manufacturer in that Collectorate, Mazagaon Docks had cleared dredgers free of duty as ocean going vessel. This was pleaded by the appellant before the Collector also but it was not accepted by him. In view of the Trade Notice which is binding on the department, we are inclined to accept the plea about the dredgers, barges and tugs being cove red by the exemption Notification. The alternative plea that the order of the Collector directing the appellant, Bharati Shipyard to debit a sum of Rs. 11,43,016.00 from their Personal Ledger Account was beyond the scope of the show cause notice is valid as the notice did not cover the same. On this ground also the said direction in the impugned order deserves to be set aside. As the appeal is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
