Warship classification for police patrol boats prevails; procedural lapses did not justify penalty under the exemption notification.

Boats manufactured and supplied to the Maharashtra Police for patrolling and coastal security, and fitted to carry arms and ammunition, were not classifiable as pleasure or sports vessels under CTH 8903; on those facts, they were correctly treated as warships under CTH 8906. Procedural lapses in not filing an ex-bond bill of entry and not informing excise authorities did not justify penalty, because the manufacture was for warships and Notification No. 36/2001-CE exempted such manufacture from central excise registration. The Revenue's classification objection failed and no penal consequence followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the boats manufactured and supplied to the Maharashtra Police were classifiable as warships under CTH 8906 or as pleasure or sports vessels under CTH 8903. (ii) Whether penalty was imposable for not filing ex-bond bill of entry and for alleged non-compliance with excise warehousing procedure, in the light of Notification No. 36/2001-CE dated 26.06.2001.

Issue (i): Whether the boats manufactured and supplied to the Maharashtra Police were classifiable as warships under CTH 8906 or as pleasure or sports vessels under CTH 8903.

Analysis: The boats were supplied to the Maharashtra Police for patrolling and coastal security, and the record showed that they were fitted to carry arms and ammunition for police patrol parties. On that factual basis, the boats could not be treated as vessels for pleasure or sports. The Revenue's classification under CTH 8903 was therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The boats were correctly treated as warships falling under CTH 8906, not as pleasure or sports vessels under CTH 8903.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was imposable for not filing ex-bond bill of entry and for alleged non-compliance with excise warehousing procedure, in the light of Notification No. 36/2001-CE dated 26.06.2001.

Analysis: Although there was procedural breach in not filing the ex-bond bill of entry and in not informing the excise authorities, the manufacture was for warships, and the relevant notification exempted such manufacture from central excise registration. In the circumstances, the procedural lapse did not justify penalty.

Conclusion: No penalty was imposable on the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the Revenue's classification objection failed, and the procedural violations did not result in any penal consequence.

---