2002 (6) TMI 488 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of moveable gears, stores, and bunkers for duty assessment.
2. Interpretation of Circular No. 37/96 regarding classification of ship stores.
3. Application of Notifications No. 87/90-Cus., No. 118/89-Cus., and No. 169/89-Cus. for duty assessment on vessels.
4. Permissibility of raising new grounds related to rate and quantum of duty on the vessel at the appellate stage.

Issue 1: Classification of moveable gears, stores, and bunkers for duty assessment
The appellant, engaged in ship breaking, imported old vessels and filed a Bill of Entry. The Customs duty was assessed, and a show cause notice was issued later for duty on moveable gears, stores, and bunkers. The demand for duty on moveable gears and stores was dropped based on a circular by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The demand for duty on remaining bunkers, fuel, and oil was confirmed to be assessed separately.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Circular No. 37/96 regarding classification of ship stores
The Revenue appealed, arguing that the adjudicating authority erred in not demanding duty on ship stores separately as per the circular. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, noting that the show cause notice did not quantify duty for eatable provisions, justifying not confirming the demand.

Issue 3: Application of Notifications for duty assessment on vessels
The appellant contended that duty on the vessel was calculated based on MT, not LDT, and claimed benefits under specific Notifications. The Revenue argued that the proceedings were limited to classification of moveable gears, stores, and bunkers, not the vessel's duty rate or quantum. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's objection, stating that the appellant could not raise new grounds regarding the vessel's assessment at a later stage.

Issue 4: Permissibility of raising new grounds related to rate and quantum of duty on the vessel at the appellate stage
The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's contentions on the vessel's duty rate and quantum were not part of the original proceedings or cross appeal. Referring to relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that such new grounds could not be raised at a later stage if not part of the initial proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant could not challenge the vessel's assessment through a cross appeal filed years later.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that the appellant could not introduce new grounds for challenging the vessel's duty assessment at a later stage, as it was not part of the original proceedings. The appeal was dismissed based on the established legal principles and the specific focus of the initial proceedings on the classification of moveable gears, stores, and bunkers.