2001 (2) TMI 684 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a ship brought for breaking is subject to payment of additional duty equal to customs duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The main issue in this appeal was whether a ship brought for breaking is liable to pay additional duty equal to customs duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellant argued that since the ship was not capable of being manufactured in India for being simply broken, it should not be subject to additional duty. However, the Tribunal referred to a Constitution Bench decision which clarified that if an imported article is one which has been manufactured or produced, it must be presumed that such an article can likewise be manufactured or produced in India. Therefore, the ship brought for breaking, even if not manufactured in India, was capable of being manufactured in India and hence subject to additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act.

2. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that a ship brought for breaking cannot be treated as capable of being manufactured in India. It emphasized that the ship, even if manufactured abroad, is to be treated as capable of being manufactured or produced in India for the purpose of levying additional duty. The rate of additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act is not related to the Customs Act schedules but is equal to the excise duty leviable under the Excise Act on a similar domestically manufactured article.

3. The Tribunal also discussed a Constitution Bench decision which upheld the levy of additional duty on brass scrap as it was considered the outcome of a manufacturing process. Similarly, the Tribunal concluded that a ship brought for breaking is also the outcome of a manufacturing process and thus subject to the levy of additional excise duty under Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act. The Tribunal disagreed with the appellant's submission that a previous court decision supported their argument, emphasizing that the ship brought for breaking is indeed subject to additional duty.

4. Another argument raised by the appellant was regarding a notification providing duty exemption to goods, including vessels and floating structures for breaking up, manufactured without the aid of power. The Tribunal noted that the ship in question was manufactured with the aid of power, making it ineligible for the exemption. The appellant's reliance on a previous court decision was dismissed, and it was held that the ship was not covered by the notification, thus not eligible for the exemption, and liable for additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act.

5. The appellant also referred to a decision from the Karnataka High Court related to a similar issue, where the recovery of additional duty was stayed. However, the Tribunal highlighted a decision from the Bombay High Court and reiterated that in the case of ships brought to India for breaking, additional duty under the Tariff Act is leviable. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it based on the above analysis.