1998 (3) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d appellant, M/s. Bharati Shipyard Private Ltd. and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the second mentioned appellant, M/s. Travancore Cements Pvt. Ltd. confiscating one dredger seized from them but giving an option for their release subject to payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of confiscation. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2.  On behalf of M/s. Travancore Cement Pvt. Ltd., learned Counsel, Shri Joseph Kodianthara submitted that they had placed orders with appellant No. 1 for construction and delivery of one dredger and two barges. For the dredger they had paid the price charged including Central Excise duty as shown in the relevant Gate Pass. If, in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from duty vide Notification No. 234/82, dated 11-1-1982. The Pune Collectorate had issued a Trade Notice 32/84 clarifying that the term "ocean going vessels" figuring in the aforesaid exemption Notification will include, inter alia hopper barges for the disposal of dredged material, tugs and dredgers. The goods in question were thus eligible for exemption from duty. He referred to the Tribunal decision in Vipul Shipyard v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1985 (19) E.L.T. 122 wherein it was held that barges are ocean going vessels for the purpose of exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification 55/75, dated 28-2-1982. In conclusion learned Counsel stated that the appellant is a Private Limited Company promoted by technocrats who....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mption from duty under the Notification in question. The Collector has gone by the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 401 for deciding the question as to what is an ocean going vessel. This decision which is of the year 1987 is to be taken as superseding the Trade Notice issued by the Collectorate in 1984. Applying the said judgment to the present case and taking into account the fact that the dredger was for use in Kottayam lake to dredge lime shells, the same cannot be treated as ocean going vessel. 5.  We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The Collectorate Trade Notice relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant (Bharati Shipyard....