TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....004 is related to this appeal. 2 Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, in Appeal No C/997/03 are as follows : (a) The appellant imported a vessel for ship breaking in April, 1991 and the Bill of Entry was assessed and they paid assessed duty of Rs. 95,21,013/-; the appellant did not challenge the order of the assessment. Show cause notice dated 13-5-91 was issued proposing a demand of differential duty of Rs. 1,88,825.30 on the ground that moveable gears, consumable stores, bunkers etc. should not have been assessed as part and parcel of imported vessel but should have been assessed separately on merits and charged to import duty. The original authority dropped the demand of Rs. 1,44,544.85 relating to moveable gears, and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner (appeals). 4. The relevant facts relating to appeal No. C/1062 of 2003 are as follows : (a) The appellant imported a vessel in December 1999 for ship breaking. It was assessed to duty and a sum of Rs. 31,79,991/- was paid. (b) They claimed to have declared the quantity of provisions as declared by the master of the vessel, Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally and 'finalized in April 2001 at the declared value after including 1% landing charge and the customs duty paid by them. (c) The appellant contended that since duty was collected before beaching of the ship that was before reaching the landmass, 1% landing charge cannot be added in arriving at the assessable value. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 10-10-03 reject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions from both sides 7.1 In the case appeal no C/997/07, show cause notices issued by the Superintendent proposing demands of duty on moveable gears, stores and bunkers by treating them as separate from vessel imported for ship breaking. The original authority has dropped the proceedings in respect of demand in excess of Rs. 44,280.45 in one case and iii excess of about Rs. 28 thousand in another case. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) only the Department went on appeal seeking to set aside the orders of the original authority dropping the portions of demand which have been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order dated 30-9-03 which was passed in pursuance of the Tribunal's order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained in the machinery. However, they have not produced any evidence to slow that the bunker/fuel oil, on which duty was confirmed, was contained in the machinery. This aspect has been dealt with by the adjudicating authority at page 5 of the order in original. He has demanded duty on remaining fuel and oil not in respect of oil/fuel contained in the machinery. I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the adjudicating authority. 19. On the issue of eatable stuff, the Hon'ble Tribunal has decided in the case of Ghaziabad Ship Breakers & Anr. v. CC. (P), Ahmedabad reported ii 2003 (151) E.L.T. 636 (Tri.-Del.) that duty is chargeable on these goods." 7.3 The appellant had not filed any appeal against the assessment orders. The appell....