2013 (12) TMI 338 - AT - Central Excise

Activity manufacture or not Mis-declaration of Yacht Ashena as being wooden cargo vessel Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The appellant has brought to notice that the boat/yacht which was further worked upon by them was in fact shown to be as constructed/manufactured by M/s. Wadia Boat Builders - the appellant had only done part of the work like fitting of pipelines, fuel tanks and engines - The issue is arguable one as to whether appellant is a manufacturer or not needs to be gone into detail, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal - the amount deposited by the appellant is enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal pre-deposits waived till the disposal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty; Classification of appellant as a manufacturer under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the appellant, M/s. ABG Shipyards Ltd., filed a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty amounts. The adjudicating authority had confirmed these amounts, alleging that the appellant had mis-declared and cleared a yacht as a wooden cargo vessel, not considering it a manufacturing activity. The authority classified the appellant as a manufacturer under chapter heading No.890399.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and confirmed the assessable value. The appellant argued that they had received the boat from M/s. Wadia Boat Builders for further work, including pipeline fitting, engine motors, and fuel tanks, before exporting it to Dubai. They claimed to have paid appropriate service tax to M/s. Raymonds Ltd. for repairs and maintenance services. The Additional Commissioner (A.R.) contended that the appellant, as a manufacturer, was liable for the full duty liability.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had only undertaken part of the work on the yacht, while M/s. Wadia Boat Builders was credited with the construction/manufacturing. The crucial issue at hand was whether the appellant could be classified as a manufacturer, warranting further detailed examination during the final appeal disposal. The Tribunal deemed the amount already deposited by the appellant as sufficient for the appeal hearing and allowed the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining balance, staying the recovery until the appeal's final disposal. Additionally, as the issue overlapped with an appeal by M/s. Wadia Boat Builders, the Tribunal directed the registry to consolidate both appeals for joint disposal in the future. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in the Court by Mr. M.V. Ravindran.