9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the costal border of the country and the boats are not used for any other purpose. It is also undisputed that the said interceptor boat are equipped with arms and ammunition, therefore, it is absolutely without any doubt that the interceptor boat is a warship. From the N/N. 12/2012-Cust (Sr. No. 460 or 469A), it can be seen that the spare parts supplied for warship is clearly exempted under Notification 12/2012-Cust. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant are clearly eligible for exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (Sr. No. 460). In this position, we do not find it necessary to examine the eligibility of the exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cust (Sr. No. 469A). X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-In-Original. Being aggrieved by the said Order-In-Original the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri. Ashish Chauhan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the exemption under Serial No. 469A was of notification No. 12/2012-Cus was denied on the ground that the spares supplied by the appellant is not in connection with the manufacture of interceptor boats. He submits that even though the spares were separately supplied but since it was in or in relation to manufacture and accessories thereof. The said supplies clearly covered under exemption. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * Supreme Court Judgment in the matter of State of Haryana Vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. 1987 (Supp) SCC 679 * Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri.-Del.)- JCB India Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi * 2001 (128) ELT 155 (Tri-Chennai) - AP heavy Machinery & Engg. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad * Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17.03.2012. * 2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.) - CCE, Surat-I Vs. Neminath Fabrics P. Ltd. * 2008 (221) ELT 481 (SC) - Mathania Fabrics Vs. CCE, Jaipur 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant's goods imported and supplied as a B&D spares of Interceptor Boats to Cost Guard, Government of India is eligible for exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cust (Sr. No. 460 or 469A). We examine the eligibility of exemption notification under Sr. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls and submits such account periodically to the commissioner of customs in such form and in such manner as may be specified by the said commissioner; (b) the importer, by the execution of bond, in such form and for such sum as may be specified by the Commissioner of Customs, binds himself to pay on demand an amount equal to the duty leviable, -on the spares and consumables, as are not proved to the satisfaction of the said commissioner to have been used or otherwise consumed for the aforesaid purpose, within a period of three months from the date of importation thereof or within such extended period as that commissioner, on being satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not using or consuming them, as the case may be, for the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
