9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any duty, claiming the benefit of the exemption contained in entry 3 of the table to the Notification 64/95 as amended. This entry exempts from duty goods supplied as stores for consumption on board ships of the Indian navy or coast guard. Notice issued to the appellant demanded duty and proposed penalty on the ground that the engine that were supplied were not stores for consumption on board ships of the Indian navy or coast guard, but were in fact supplied to be fitted on to ships being constructed by Goa Shipyard for supply to navy or coast guard. The Commissioner has confirmed this view and imposed penalty. 3. It is contended by the appellant that engines were in fact supplied for fitment of ship. Counsel for the appellant relies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that stores were intended to cover spare parts and not the components. The benefit of the exemption is clearly not available. 4. We now turn to penalty. It is contended that penalty was not imposable because the appellant bona fide pleaded that the goods were meant for use on board the vessel on the navy or coast guard ship stores. Reliance is placed this purpose upon the Commissioner's conclusion that the extended period of limitation contained in proviso under sub-section 11 and the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act will not apply because there was no suppression, misstatement of facts by the appellant. It is true that the Commissioner has found the extended period of limitation inapplicable. The notice issued to the appellant all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngine is about 30 crores. The appellant did not produce the tender notice or its offers in response thereto. It is difficult to believe that they did not in clear terms say that the engines were to be supplied for construction of ship; nor is counsel for the appellant able to deny that at the various meetings between the representatives of the appellant and buyer the fact that the goods were for to be used for construction ships by the buyer was made clear. It is absurd to accept that the appellant could have believed that the engines were not meant for use in construction of ships. 5. The certificate that the appellant relies upon issued by the coast guard is ambiguous. It says that the main engines are for fitment as store on board the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
