2000 (2) TMI 585 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the Armour plates obtained by breaking a ship during April 1988 to June 1988 were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 93/88 dated 1-3-1988 and Notification No. 173/88-C.E. dated 13-5-1988.

Analysis:

The appellant appealed against the order-in-appeal denying them the benefit of Notification No. 93/88-C.E. and Notification No. 173/88-C.E. The appellant purchased a ship for breaking and paid duty under the Customs Act. They claimed benefits under various notifications, but the benefit was denied due to non-fulfillment of conditions. The appellant argued that previous notifications were rescinded and new notifications provided for concessional rates of duty. The appellant emphasized that they paid the required duty and were entitled to the benefits. The Revenue, however, contended that the ship did not fulfill the conditions for the notifications, specifically regarding additional customs duty. They argued that subsequent amendments were not clarificatory but prospective in nature.

The main issue was whether the Armour plates obtained from breaking the ship were eligible for the benefits of the notifications. The appellant paid the required custom duty at the time of import. Notification No. 93/88 and Notification No. 173/88 provided for concessional rates of duty based on specific conditions, including payment of customs duty and additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. However, the ship in question did not fulfill the condition of paying additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act.

The appellant contended that an amending notification, Notification No. 82/91, made the additional duty condition obsolete, making them eligible for the benefits. However, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, amending notifications that change conditions are not clarificatory and do not have retrospective effect. Thus, the amendment in this case did not make the appellant eligible for the benefits under the notifications. As the appellant did not meet the conditions of the notifications, the appeal was rejected.