2013 (10) TMI 1259 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rectifies error in Final Order, grants exemption under Notification No. 167/86.

MUSTAN TAHERBHAI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR

MUSTAN TAHERBHAI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR - 2013 (293) E.L.T. 705 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues Involved:1. Rectification of error apparent on the face of the record.2. Consideration of submissions related to Appeal No. C/1/2008.3. Eligibility for exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) under Notification No. 167/86.4. Applicability of the Karnataka High Court judgment in Engee Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rectification of Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:The appellant filed an application for rectification of an error in the Final Order dated 6-8-2012, which disposed of two appeals but did not address the issues in Appeal No. C/1/2008. Both the appellant and the Special Counsel for the Revenue agreed that there was an error as the findings did not cover the submissions related to Appeal No. C/1/2008. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and decided that the final order needed rectification to address this issue.2. Consideration of Submissions Related to Appeal No. C/1/2008:The appellant argued that the Final Order dated 6-8-2012 did not consider their submissions regarding the imposition of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) on the vessel M.V. Jagat Priya, imported for breaking. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed contested the issue before the lower authorities and claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 167/86. The Tribunal recognized that the appellant's submissions were not considered in the original order and decided to rectify this by addressing the issue in the current proceedings.3. Eligibility for Exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) under Notification No. 167/86:The appellant claimed exemption from CVD on the imported vessel M.V. Jagat Priya under Notification No. 167/86, which exempts goods from excise duty if no power is used in their manufacture. The appellant argued that the ship-breaking process did not involve the use of power, and thus, they were eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had consistently claimed this exemption before the lower authorities and provided relevant documentation, such as the Bill of Entry, to support their claim.4. Applicability of the Karnataka High Court Judgment in Engee Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd.:The appellant cited the Karnataka High Court judgment in Engee Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., which dealt with a similar issue of exemption from additional duty for vessels imported for breaking. The High Court had held that if no power is used in the ship-breaking process, the exemption under Notification No. 167/86 applies. The Tribunal found that this judgment was directly applicable to the present case and binding on them. The Special Counsel for the Revenue suggested remanding the matter back to the lower authorities, but the Tribunal decided that it would serve no purpose as the High Court's judgment was clear and binding.Conclusion:The Tribunal rectified the error in the Final Order dated 6-8-2012 by considering the submissions related to Appeal No. C/1/2008. It held that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 167/86, as the ship-breaking process did not involve the use of power. The Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal No. 99/JMN/2007 and allowed the appeal to the extent it challenged the imposition of CVD. The application for rectification of mistake was disposed of accordingly.Pronouncement:The judgment was pronounced in Court on 3-5-2013.