TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s pertinent to mention here that in the show-cause notice no proposal of demand of duty has been made against the appellant - Appeal is allowed - E/2054/2002-Mum - A/13/2011-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 5-1-2011 - S/Shri Ashok Jindal, P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. The appellant namely Pankaj Steel Corporation has filed this appeal in the capacity of an aggrieved person against the impugned order. Vide Order No. 216/04B/2004B, dated 25-2-2004, [2004 (169) E.L.T. 228 (Tri. - Del.)] appeal of the appellant was dismissed by this Tribunal on the ground that they had no locus standi t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g excise duty column blank whereby the meaning that there is no duty is payable. Thereafter, the appellant took delivery of the goods which has been described as Iron and Steel scraps arising out 7 Nos. of Temporary Decks and 4 Nos. of Helidecks. At this stage, a dispute on classification of Temporary decks and Helidecks took place. The O.N.G.C. had purchased these temporary decks and helidecks from Mazgaon Dock Ltd. and Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. These two units filed classification declaration classifying the decks under Heading 89.05 attracting nil rate of duty. However, the department classified these decks under Heading 84.31 of the Tariff and demanded differential duty from these two units. The said issue of classification was pendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Tariff Act which attracting duty @ 16% ad valorem. Accordingly, the duty demand was confirmed along with the penalty. Aggrieved from the said adjudication order, ONGC preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was rejected. Thereafter, the bank guarantee executed by the appellant was encashed and no appeal has been filed by the ONGC before this Tribunal against the impugned order. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal in the capacity of person aggrieved by the impugned order. 5. Shri. T. Vishwanathan, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that as per the show-cause notice the impugned goods were classified as under :- The goods so manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not required to pay duty in the absence of any show-cause notice. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has classified the impugned scrap of floating structures/helidecks under CHS 89.08 which is also not the correct classification as Heading 89.08 refers to vessels and other floating structures for breaking up and the items purchased by the appellant are described as iron and steel scrap arising out of floating structures/decks. He submitted that the correct classification of the said scrap is under heading 72.30 where the goods are described as goods and materials of Chapter 72 obtained by breaking up of ships, boats and other floating structures. Hence, the demand raised in the show-cause notice is not sustainable at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the sale was completed. The contention of the learned Advocate that as per show-cause notice the impugned goods have been classified under Heading 8905 by Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and after breaking up the same is classifiable under Heading 8908 is not the issue before us. In fact, as per show-cause notice, it is proposed to classify the scrap of iron and steel, generated out of helidecks and temporary decks under Heading 8908. We have seen the provisions of Central Excise Tariff Act wherein Chapter 89 deals with ships, boats and floating structures. The Heading 8908 reads as under : 89.08. This heading is restricted to the vessels and other floating structures of heading 89.01 to 89.07 when presented for the purpose of being broken up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|