9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1988 was denied to the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant purchased a one ship through Metal Scrap Trade Corporation of India Ltd. for the purpose of breaking. The appellant paid duty @ Rs. 1400 per L.D.T. under Heading 89.08 of the Customs Act. The appellant started clearing the scrap of the ship by availing the benefit of Notification No. 386/86, dated 20-8-1986. During the period April 1988 to June 1988 the appellant cleared certain amount of Armour plates obtained by breaking of the ship and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 103/87, dated 1-3-1987. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant denying the benefit of Notification No. 103/87, dated 1-3-1987 as the notification was rescinded vide Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 365 per L.D.T. The notification further laid down the condition that if the ship was imported before 1-3-1988, the ship should suffer the custom duty @ Rs. 1035 per L.D.T. and additional duty @ Rs. 365 per L.D.T. He submits that another Notification No. 173/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 was issued containing the similar provisions. He submits that as per Notification No. 173/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988, the duty payable on goods contained activity of ship breaking is Rs. 365 per L.D.T. provided if the ship is imported on or before 1-3-1988 duty @ Rs. 375 per L.D.T. and additional duty of Customs @ Rs. 365 per L.D.T. has been paid. 4. Learned Counsel submits that the Notification No. 173/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 was further amended by Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in the similar situation the Tribunal in the above mentioned cases has held that an amending notifications are clarificatory in nature. He submits that the Notification No. 82/91 is clarificatory in nature, therefore, appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 93/88 and 173/88-C.E. 6. Learned JDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the Notification No. 93/88, dated 1-3-1988 specifically lays the condition that the ship imported must have suffered the custom duty as well as the additional custom duty. The similar conditions are in the Notification No. 173/88. He submits that as the ship in question has not suffered any additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Act, the goods in questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty of excise leviable thereon, which a specified in the said Schedule, as is in excess of the amount, calculated at the rate of Rs. 365 per tonne : Provided that the said goods have been obtained from breaking up at ships, boats, and other floating structures, - (i) When imported on or after the 1st day of March, 1988, duty of customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) at the rate of Rs. 750 per Light Displacement Tonnage has been paid, and the additional duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act at the rate of Rs. 365 per Light Displacement Tonnage, (ii) When imported before the 1st day of March, 1988, duty of custom leviable thereon under the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; or (ii) when imported before the 1st day of March, 1988, duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule at the rate of Rs. 1035 per Light Displacement Tonnage, has been paid." Both the notifications provides that the goods and material obtained by breaking ship is entitled for concessional rate of duty on the conditions that the ship must have suffered customs duty and additional duty leviable under Section 3 of said Customs Tariff Act. In the present case the ship imported by appellants has not paid any additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. 11. The contention of the appellant is that the condition of the additional duty paid under Section 3 of Customs Act was done away by issuing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree as the disputed imports with which we are concerned are prior to 2-9-1978. They are therefore, covered by the earlier Notification of 1976. It is true that the Tribunal by noting these submissions has observed in paragraph 35 of the judgment that the colour specification was an error and that the error be removed but for that reason it could not ignore the colour specification when it was the part of the law. We entirely agree with the view of the Tribunal that even if the Central Government corrected its error about condition No. 2 from 2-9-1978 by issuing a fresh Notification, the earlier colour specification requirement remained operative for imports made by the concerned importers prior to 2-9-1978 when the earlier Notification date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
