9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said bunker was used while the vessel was on coastal run. In these circumstances no violation of section 86 & 87 of the Customs Act has been made out by Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/278-280/2010-DB - Order No. A/11624-11626/2018 - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Raju, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Shri J.C. Patel, Ms. Shilpa Balani, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. S.N. Gohil, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per : Raju These appeals are filed by M/s Reliance Industries Ltd., Atlantic Shipping Pvt. Ltd Captain A Thangavel against confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s RIL in respect of bunkers which were used during the voyage from Hazira to Sikka and duty, provisionally assessed, was paid. The duty free bunker which was received on 22/05/2008, it was claimed, was made use on the foreign voyage of the vessel which was to be later undertaken to Columbo on about 5-6th June, 2008. The provisional assessment of duty of bill of entry dated 26/05/2008 was finalized on 26/06/2018. 2.1. Ld. Counsel pointed that investigation were conducted by recording statements of master of vessel and employee of the agent and manufacturer of M/s RIL. Then a Show Cause Notice demanding duty was issued alleging that they were not entitled to receive duty free bunker as the vessel at the material time was on coastal run fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough quantity of duty paid bunker for consumption during the coastal run and hence, no duty was required to be paid only on the bunker received on 22/05/2008 which was not consumed in the coastal run. 2.3 He further argued that the Show Cause Notice has been issued on 16/09/2009 and therefore is barred by limitation. He argued that the master of the vessel had informed the Supdt. of Custom, Sikka of diversion of voyage to Sikka instead of Fujairah on the same day and before the duty free bunker was received by them. In these circumstances extended period cannot be invoked. He further argued that section 28 of the Custom Act have can have no application for demand of duty for goods removed from SEZ units. He further argued that in the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pment with permission to be taken to M.T. Ruby-I at Kandla. (d) The Customs authorities at Kandla took the view that the vessel during the relevant time is not a foreign going vessel and therefore, the goods are not eligible for duty free transshipment from Mumbai and the goods were confiscated by the original authority and offered redemption on payment of fine of ₹ 60,000/-. After denying the benefit of Sections 86(2) and 87 of Customs Act, 1962, duty was demanded. He also imposed penalty on the appellant company and on Shri Suresh G. Kewalramani, the other appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. And the decision was as follows: 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
