1999 (5) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification under Customs Tariff - Benefit of Excise Duty Notifications

In this case, the appellant purchased a Dredger from the Kandla Port Trust, which was imported earlier in 1962 for the purpose of breaking up. The appellant claimed classification under Headings 7215.00 and 7309.00 and sought benefits under Notification No. 102/87 for Basic Excise Duty and Notification No. 137/87 for Nil Special Excise Duty. The Assistant Collector's classification order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals), who directed a reconsideration. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector approved a sub-heading but applied a higher duty rate than claimed by the appellant. The Collector (Appeals) denied the benefits of Notifications No. 102/87, 103/87, and 174/87, upholding the classification and duty rate set by the Assistant Collector. The resultant demand for differential duty was confirmed by the authorities, leading to the present appeals challenging these orders.

The appellant's representative argued that while the benefits of certain notifications were not applicable, the benefit of Notification No. 54/86 should be granted, as per a claim made earlier. The Tribunal examined the relevant entry and conditions of Notification No. 54/86. The representative contended that the conditions allowed for the concession since the waste and scrap in question originated from a ship imported into India after paying appropriate duty. However, the Tribunal noted that the specific sub-headings mentioned in the notification did not cover the waste and scrap resulting from breaking up ships, which fell under a different sub-heading in the tariff. As the conditions of the notification were not met, the Tribunal held that the appellant's case did not qualify for the benefits under Notification No. 54/86.

The Tribunal emphasized the principle of strict construction of notifications, stating that if any condition is not fulfilled, the benefit of the notification cannot be availed. Since the Tribunal found that the appellant did not meet the conditions of Notification No. 54/86, it upheld the assessment finalization and the demand for differential duty. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming the orders of the authorities regarding classification and duty rate.