2007 (8) TMI 217 - AT - Customs

Cross-objection filed before Comm(A) can be rejected if it raise issues which were not mentioned in OIO or SCN Vessel imported for ship breaking Landing charges value of food stuffs & bunker oil are includible in assessable value to raise differential duty Appeal of assessee dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the rejection of cross objections by the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to two imported vessels for ship breaking.
2. Appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the assessment of duty on a vessel imported for ship breaking, including the addition of a landing charge and duty on foodstuffs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
In Appeal No. C/997/03, the appellant imported vessels for ship breaking and paid assessed duty without challenging the assessment orders. The Department issued show cause notices proposing differential duty on certain items, which the original authority partially confirmed. The Department's appeals against the dropped demands were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The importer filed cross objections, which were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the cross objections. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the cross objections, leading to the present appeal against this rejection. The Tribunal found that the appellant was seeking to raise issues not covered by the show cause notices through cross objections, which was impermissible. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Issue 2:
In Appeal No. C/1062/03, the appellant imported a vessel for ship breaking and paid duty. The appellant contested the addition of a 1% landing charge to the assessable value, duty on food consumed post-beaching, and duty on fuel and bunkers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the inclusion of landing charges and the duty on foodstuffs consumed after beaching, citing precedents. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) on these points, stating that the inclusion of landing charges and duty on consumed foodstuffs was legal. The appellant's claim regarding the location of fuel and oil in the vessel was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal found the appellant's request for re-assessment without merit. The appellant's plea for cost against the Department was deemed unjustified, as the appellant prolonged the litigation unnecessarily. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Department's cross-objections were disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, both appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) in both cases.