TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fiscation under Sec. 125(1) of the Customs Act was also imposed. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on Shri Amir Salman, Import Manager of the firm under Sec. 112 (a) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had imported self propelled Tug Smit Jaguar, year Built 2009 with NASSAU Registry and claimed exemption under Notification No.21/2002 dt. 01.03.2002 at Sl. No. 216, List No. 12 and condition Sr. No. 31. As per the condition of the Notification claimed by the applicant, the applicant is entitled to import the said vessel into India in connection with petroleum operations under specified contract. As per the condition No. 31, the importer was required to obtain a Certificate from a duly authorized officer of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also not disputed that after importation, the same was put to use for the intended purpose. The only dispute arose is that during the currency of the contract the vessel was diverted into the service of the salvage operation of MSC Chitra in the Mumbai Harbour for a period of 22 days from 10.8.2010 to 02.09.2010 without any prior intimation to the customs authorities who granted duty free benefit to the vessel under the above notification. It is further submitted that as the above said notification does not attach any post-importation or end-use condition, therefore, there is no breach of any condition of the notification. Consequently the benefit of the notification cannot be denied. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilt in the relevant entry itself, therefore, the condition of the notification is clearly breached. Consequently, the benefit of the Notification is not available and same condition was in the case of King Rotors & Air Chapter P. Ltd. (supra) therefore, the ld. Commissioner has rightly denied the benefit of the Notification to the appellants. 6. Considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the issue relates to the grant of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 sl. No. 216. The relevant entry is reproduced below:- S. No. Chapter or Heading or sub - heading no. Description of goods Standard rate Additional rate Condition No. 216 84 or any other Chapter Goods specified in List 12 re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed". The court held that the mere fact that some of the cement supplied to the Punjab State Electricity Board on the basis of certificates issued by the Board to the effect the cement was required for use in the generation or distribution of electrical energy, was used by the Board for activities not directly connected activities therewith cannot make any different regarding the availability of the exemption. Further in the case of National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. CC (Import), Mumbai 2000(126) ELT 1072, while interpreting the Notification No. 158/76-Cus which exempts raw naphtha intended for use in the manufacture of petrochemicals and extending the benefit thereunder to the quantity of raw naphtha which had evaporated and henc....