2019 (12) TMI 634 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - MV Royale Floatal - the assessee had sought classification under heading 8905 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tarif Act, 1985 and, against the proposal in the show cause notice to classify it under heading no. 8903, the adjudicating authority found it appropriate that heading no. 8901 should be adopted - to be classified under heading no. 8903 9990, or under heading no. 8901 9000? - benefit of N/N. 12/2013-CE dated 1st March 2013. HELD THAT - The fine line of distinction between opulence and pleasurable degeneracy may pose a dilemma for the moralist but, in the absence of such considerations in ascertainment of rate of duty in the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, insistence upon classification on perception or usage would be tantamount to insinuating personal values which, while permissible in Legislative enactments, is to be eschewed in tax enforcement. The issue decided in the case of SHRI ASHOK KHETRAPAL, M/S GOA COASTAL RESORTS RECREATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS CC JAMNAGAR 2014 (4) TMI 421 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that Casino vessel POG imported by the importer is principally designed to carry passengers and has been correctly assessed under CTH 8901. In the light of the decision in re Ashok Khetrapal and the absence of other binding precedent on the classification of casino vessels as pleasure boats , we are not required to examine the other submissions based on other decisions. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of 'MV Royale Floatal'
2. Determination of duty liability
3. Interpretation of classification headings under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
4. Evaluation of evidence and documentation
5. Applicability of judicial precedents

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of 'MV Royale Floatal':
The primary issue revolves around the classification of the vessel 'MV Royale Floatal,' which was transformed from a 'dumb barge' into a self-propelled luxury floating hotel. The Revenue sought re-classification under heading no. 8903 9990, which pertains to 'yachts and other vessels for pleasure or sports,' instead of the adjudicating authority's classification under heading no. 8901 9000, for 'other vessels for transport of persons or goods.'

2. Determination of Duty Liability:
The show cause notice proposed recovery of undischarged duty liability, arguing that the vessel was intended for use as an 'offshore casino,' thus concealing its true intent to avail the benefits of the claimed classification. The adjudicating authority, however, concluded that the vessel, at the time of clearance, was classified correctly as a 'conveyance for persons' and not as a 'pleasure boat.'

3. Interpretation of Classification Headings:
The adjudicating authority relied on the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, and the certificate from the Indian Register of Shipping, which classified the vessel as a 'passenger ship.' The decision was supported by the Tribunal's precedent in Raj Shipping Agency Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, which held that the classification should be based on the vessel's primary design and function at the time of clearance.

4. Evaluation of Evidence and Documentation:
The adjudicating authority examined extensive correspondence, inspection reports, and photographs, concluding that post-clearance modifications did not affect the initial classification. The adjudicating authority also noted the independent operations of the holding company and its subsidiaries, finding no evidence of intent to deploy the vessel as anything other than a 'passenger vessel.'

5. Applicability of Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal referenced multiple precedents, including Ashok Khetrapal v. Commissioner of Customs and Urmila & Co Pvt Ltd v. Collector of Customs. These cases emphasized that the classification should be based on the vessel's design and intended use at the time of clearance. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the vessel should be classified under heading no. 8903, as 'floating casinos' are not explicitly included under 'vessels for pleasure or sports.'

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's classification under heading no. 8901, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The decision emphasized that the classification should be based on the vessel's primary function and design at the time of clearance, supported by appropriate judicial precedents and documentary evidence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original order.

← Previous Next →