9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeraiyan, Member (T) Shri A.D. Maru, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri D.S. Negi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - Appeal No. C/900/03 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 340/2003 (117-JMN) dated 10-10-2003 by which the appeal of the party against the order-in-original No. 85/Cus/ Ref/ 2000 dated 5-2-2001 was rejected. Cross-objection No. 264/2004 is connected to this appeal. 1.2 Appeal No. C/900/03 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 330/2003(115-JMN) dated 10-10-2003 by which the appeal of the party against order of the Assistant Commissioner No. 05/2001-2002 was rejected. Cross-objection No. 215/2004 is connected to this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd provisions were rightly paid and that also adopting declared value for the vessel which included 1% as landing charges. (d) The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the party's appeal. 4. We have carefully considered the detailed submissions from both sides. The learned Advocate in his written synopsis filed in respect of Appeal No. 900/03 on 24-4-2007 has clearly gone beyond the disputes which were before the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) by seeking relief by way of refund amounting to Rs. 2,43,29,330/- and the same is not appreciated. 5. The common issue involved in both the appeals is regarding the duty leviable on bunkers/oils, consumable stores on board the vessel. The original authorities held that whatever bun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal authorities have classified fuel and oil other than those contained in the machine and engine and items like foodstuff, drinks under appropriate chapter headings and held them dutiable and accordingly rejected their refund claims. 8. The appellants submit that tanks used for storing fuel oil themselves are machines. Such fuel oil and foodstuff meant for consumption in ship and not for importation. Moreover, after breaking, the ship came on land mass there never remained any fuel oil and foodstuff being consumed. They are dealing with ship breaking activity. They are not importing any fuel oil or foodstuff. The master of the ship had not delivered any import manifest or import report as required under Sec. 30 of the Customs Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen it will lead to the absurd conclusion that the said charges would not be included in case of payment of duty in respect of prior bill of entry, where the duty is paid even before the arrival of the vessel." 11. It is to be noted that in this case, "vessel" itself is the imported goods which is to be assessed. In respect of any imported goods the value should be value of such goods for delivery at the time and place of importation and shall include as per Rule 9(2)(b) "loading, unloading and handling charges associated with the delivery of the imported goods at the place of importation". The landing charges at 1% being associated with the goods (in this case, the ship) reaching the land mass are includible in the assessable value as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
