TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Cross-Objection No. 266 of 2004 filed by the Department is connected to this appeal 1.2 Appeal No. C/1062 of 2003 is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No 332/2003 (109-JMN) dated 10-10-2003 and the Cross-Objection No 268 of 2004 is related to this appeal. 2 Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, in Appeal No C/997/03 are as follows : (a) The appellant imported a vessel for ship breaking in April, 1991 and the Bill of Entry was assessed and they paid assessed duty of Rs. 95,21,013/-; the appellant did not challenge the order of the assessment. Show cause notice dated 13-5-91 was issued proposing a demand of differential duty of Rs. 1,88,825.30 on the ground that moveable gears, consumable stores, bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction to dispose off the cross objections filed by the party in accordance with law. (d) The Commissioner (appeals) by the impugned order rejected the cross objections. (e) The present appeal is against the rejection of cross objections by the Commissioner (appeals). 4. The relevant facts relating to appeal No. C/1062 of 2003 are as follows : (a) The appellant imported a vessel in December 1999 for ship breaking. It was assessed to duty and a sum of Rs. 31,79,991/- was paid. (b) They claimed to have declared the quantity of provisions as declared by the master of the vessel, Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally and 'finalized in April 2001 at the declared value after including 1% landing charge and the customs duty paid by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e he sought the same relief from the Tribunal. 5.2 In the case of Appeal No C/1062/03, he submits that the levy and collection of the duty on foodstuffs is not legal and that the duty already collected be ordered to be refunded 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides 7.1 In the case appeal no C/997/07, show cause notices issued by the Superintendent proposing demands of duty on moveable gears, stores and bunkers by treating them as separate from vessel imported for ship breaking. The original authority has dropped the proceedings in respect of demand in excess of Rs. 44,280.45 in one case and iii excess of about Rs. 28 thousand in another case. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) only the Department went o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able. 18. The only point raised in the Cross Objection which requires a decision by the appellate authority is mentioned at para 4 of the grounds of cross objection dated 5-11-99. The respondent's claim that the amount of duty confirmed on fuel/bunker is illegal as the same was contained in the machinery. However, they have not produced any evidence to slow that the bunker/fuel oil, on which duty was confirmed, was contained in the machinery. This aspect has been dealt with by the adjudicating authority at page 5 of the order in original. He has demanded duty on remaining fuel and oil not in respect of oil/fuel contained in the machinery. I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the adjudicating authority. 19. On the issue of ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of production actual landing charges is legal and proper. Similarly, he has refrained from interfering with the order of demand on bunkers/oil and the foodstuffs and other provisions relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ghaziabad Ship Breakers 85 Anr. v. C.C. (P) Ahmedabad reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 636 (Tribunal) = 2003 (54) RLT 619 (CEGAT- Del.) In the absence of any evidence having been produced by the. appellant about their claim that bunker and oil was in the engine/machinery of the vessel, we are in agreement n the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard also. Foodstuffs were admittedly consumed by the crew members during the stay aboard in the vessel after the beaching. The assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
