9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representing the appellant, the Ship which has been brought for breaking is not one either manufactured in India or is capable of being manufactured in India. According to Counsel no Ship is manufactured in India for being broken. It is his argument that the word manufacture can only mean an article to be brought into existence for the purpose of use and not for the purpose of destroying, dismantling or breaking it. Since the Ship that has been brought is not one capable of being manufactured in India for being simply broken, Counsel argues, the same is not subject to additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. 2. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Hyderabad Industries v. Union of India [l999 (108) E.L.T. 321] c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The argument advanced by learned Counsel that a Ship brought for breaking cannot be treated as capable of being manufactured in India cannot be of any legal consequence. The Ship as such was manufactured abroad and that one is to be treated as capable of being manufactured or produced in India. Duty payable under the Customs Act on the Ship brought has been paid. Like amount is the additional duty payable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. 3. Relying on Constitution Bench decision in Hyderabad Industries case, referred to above, learned Counsel submitted that the decision of Apex Court in Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works was disapproved by the Constitution Bench and so the Ship which have been brought for breaking cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of broken Ship was produced without the aid of power, benefit of the Notification was extended to the owner of the Ship. Similarly, according to Counsel, the benefit of the Notification should be extended to the appellant herein as well. Referring to the said decision, Commissioner in the impugned order observed that the judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court (Single Judge Order) in the case of M/s. Amar Steel Industries v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 44 relied upon by the appellant has since been stayed by Division Bench in an appeal against the judgment filed by the Department. Learned Counsel has not placed any evidence before us to show that the said statement made by the Commissioner is incorrect. Furthers Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant cannot claim the benefit of exemption contemplated by it. Since the goods imported, namely, the ship which was to be broken is not one exempt from excise duty, the contention of the appellant that the additional customs duty is not leviable cannot be sustained. In other words, ship brought for breaking, being not exempt from customs duty, cannot claim exemption from levy of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. 5. Ld. Counsel then brought to our notice a decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in Engee Industries Service (P) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 58. The present appellant was the appellant in that case. It related to another ship brought to India at the Port of Mangalore for breaking. In re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
