TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 579
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r; These stay applications have been filed by the appellants against OIO No.10/Commissioner/2012, dt.23.01.13 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Prev), Jamnagar. Brief facts of the case are that a vessel was imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry No.F-27 dated 27.08.2007 of Customs House, Jamnagar. The description of the vessel given in the Bill of Entry was, interalia, as follows: "One ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aptain of Ports, Goa. After hearing the appellants adjudicating authority by its order dated 23.01.13 classified the vessel under CTH 89039990, confirmed the demand and imposed penalties upon the appellants. No confiscation of the vessel and redemption was made by the adjudicating authority holding that the vessel is not available for confiscation. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. advocate appearing on be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] That in that case the importer was claiming the classification of the vessel under 89019000 while the stand of the Revenue was that the same was classifiable under 8905 as light vessels, fire floats, dredgers, floating cranes and other vessels the navigability of which is subsidiary to vessels main function. It was the argument of the importer in that case that the vessel imported by them is ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essel imported and claimed classification under CTH 8901. The declared classification was considered by the Revenue as proper classification and clearance was accordingly allowed. There is no allegation in the show cause notice or in the impugned adjudication order that appellants have made any wilful mis-declaration or suppression regarding the description of the imported vessel. CESTAT -Mumbai b....