Customs exemption for ship-breaking imports upheld where additional duty linked to excise exemption could not be denied on vessel origin.

A vessel imported for breaking up was held eligible for exemption from additional duty of customs under Notification No. 167/86-C.E., because the linked excise duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 depends on duty leviable on a like article manufactured in India and Chapter 89 goods were exempt where no process was carried on with the aid of power. The Tribunal also treated the earlier final order's failure to address this appeal as an error apparent on the face of the record and rectified it. On merits, it accepted that a ship imported for breaking up stands on a different footing from a seaworthy vessel, so the customs exemption could not be denied merely because the vessel had originally been built with power.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from additional duty of customs (CVD) on a vessel imported for breaking up under Notification No. 167/86-C.E., and whether the earlier final order required rectification to address that issue.

Analysis: The appellant had claimed exemption from CVD on the vessel imported for breaking up, and the Tribunal found that the earlier final order had omitted consideration of the appeal relating to that issue, amounting to an error apparent on the face of the record. On merits, the Tribunal relied on the principle that under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, additional duty is linked to the excise duty leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. It noted that goods falling under Chapter 89 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were exempted from excise duty by Notification No. 167/86-C.E. dated 01.03.1986 when no process was carried on with the aid of power, and that the imported vessel was meant for breaking up without use of power. The Tribunal followed the binding view that a vessel imported for breaking up stands on a different footing from a seaworthy vessel and that the exemption could not be denied on the ground that the vessel was originally built with power.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 167/86-C.E. and the imposition of CVD was set aside to that extent, with the rectification application disposed of accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The omission in the earlier order was corrected, and the challenge to CVD on the imported vessel succeeded on merits by extending the customs exemption for ship-breaking imports.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a vessel is imported for breaking up and the applicable excise exemption covers goods of that chapter when no process is carried on with the aid of power, the linked additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 cannot be levied.

---