TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms Tariff Act, 1975 read with Notification No.94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996. 3. The vessels known as SEAMEC-I, SEAMEC-II and SEAMEC-III being multipurpose support deep sea vessel were intended to be used on charter contracts with different companies. Those were specifically designed and built to undertake shore based maintenance/removal and installation, platform repairs-subsea/topside, riser repairs-subsea, fire fighting, rescue and pollution control without being capable of commercially used as carriage for passenger or cargo commercially. All the three vessels, at the time of import thereof, were classified under CTH 89059090 and such classification continued to be maintained by Customs even on re-import thereof from time to time upon repair thereof abroad. 4. The vessels stated above having been registered with Director General Shipping were required to file Shipping Bill at the time of departure from India and convertible into foreign run. Similarly, Bill of Entry for such vessels on arrival in India before converting to coastal run was required to be filed under law. All Ocean Going Vessels were exempted from payment of duty till 28.02.2001. Consequently any repairs, ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n thereof". 6. Revenue was of the view that the following notifications were issued under Act to extend exemption from levy of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) on goods falling under specific sub-heading of Chapter 89 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India. • Notification No.133-Cus., dated 19.03.1987- 8901.10, 8901.20, 8901.30, 8901.90, 8902.00, 8904.00, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906.00. • As per Sr. No.179 of the table to Notification No.36-Cus., dated 23.07.1996- 8901.10, 8901.20, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906.00. • As per Sr. No.194 of the table to Notification No.11/97-Cus., dated 01.03.1997- 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906. • As per Sr. No.228 of the table to Notification No.23/98-Cus., dated 2.6.1998- 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906. • As per Sr. No.250 of the table to Notification No.20/99-Cus., dated 28.2.1999- 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906. • As per Sr. No.298 of the table to Notification No.16/2000-Cus., dated 01.03.2000- 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906. • As per Sr. No.322 of the table to Notificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... presented in any other manner: Provided further that if the importer makes and subscribes to a declaration before the proper officer, to the effect that he is unable for want of full information to furnish all the particulars of the goods required under this sub-section, the proper officer may, pending the production of such information, permit him, previous to the entry thereof (a) to examine the goods in the presence of an officer of customs, or (b) to deposit the goods in a public warehouse appointed under section 57 without warehousing the same. (2) Save as otherwise permitted by the proper officer, a bill of entry shall include all the goods mentioned in the bill of lading or other receipt given by the carrier to the consignor. (3) The importer shall present the bill of entry under sub-section (1) before the end of the next day following the day (excluding holidays) on which the aircraft or vessel or vehicle carrying the goods arrives at a customs station at which such goods are to be cleared for home consumption or warehousing : Provided that a bill of entry may be presented within thirty days of the expected arrival of the aircraft or vessel or vehic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Entry having been filed for the value of repair/modification carried out thereto abroad as well as freight and insurance incurred and No adjudication or assessments were ever made thereon, that has resulted in loss to the exchequer for the relevant periods, show-cause notices were issued and adjudication against SEAMEC-I resulted with following consequence of law: - 1) The vessel "Seamec I" was classifiable under CTH 89059090 and thus liable to duty. 2) The value of the repair charges of the vessel "Seamec I" was determined to be Rs. 37,16,94,698/- CIF (Rupees Thirty-seven crores Sixteen lakhs Ninety four thousand six hundred and ninety eight only) for assessment purpose. 3) Demand of duty evaded was Rs. 5,68,69,285/- (Rupees Five crores Sixty eight lakhs Sixty nine thousand two hundred eighty five only) under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, (as it existed till 08.04.2011) or Section 28(8) ibid thereafter, along with applicable interest under Section 28AB (as it existed till 08.04.2011) or Section 28AA. An amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- deposited and credited to the government treasury vide cash memo No.196 dated 16.12.2011 was appropriated towards the duty liability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x hundred and ninety eight only). 10) Penalty was imposed on M/s. Seamec Ltd. of Rs. 18,48,93,808/- (Rupees Eighteen crores Forty eight lakhs Ninety three thousand Eight hundred eight only) plus interest so determined under section 114A of Customs Act 1962. However, M/s. Seamec Ltd pays the duty and interest determined within 30 days from the date of the communication of the order, penalty was limited to 25% of the duty and interest so determined. 11) The vessel "Seamec III" was classifiable under CTH 89059090 and thus liable to duty. 12) The value of the repair charges of the vessel "Seamec III" was determined to be Rs. 71,00,69,589/- CIF (Rupees Seventy-one crores Sixty-nine thousand five hundred and eighty nine only) for assessment purpose. 13) Demand of duty evaded was Rs. 10,86,40,641/- (Rupees Ten crores Eighty-six lakhs forty thousand Six hundred Forty one only) under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, (as it existed till 08.04.2011) or Section 28(8) ibid thereafter, along with applicable interest under Section 28AB (as it existed till 08.04.2011) or Section 28AA. An amount of Rs. 4,14,00,000/- deposited and credited to the government treasury vide cash memo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er on such re-importation, value of repair so made including freight shall form part of the assessable of the such re-imported vessels and necessary duty leviable thereon under the Act. According to Revenue, the vessels so re-imported from time-to-time as per TABLE - 2 below submitted by the appellant, were "goods" as defined by Section 2(22) of the Act and that shall be liable to duty at the appropriate rate during the material period classifying the same under CTH 89059090 on the value of repair including freight forming part of the assessable value thereof. TABLE - 2 Appeal No. Vessel Actual date of imports & filing of bills of entry for consumables. Rate of Customs Duty (1) (2) (3) (4) CTH 8901 CTH 8906 CTH 8905 C/87659/13 M.S.V Seamec-I 07.06.2002 30.09.2004 20.09.2005 14.12.2007 05.08.2010 All duties Nil All duties Nil BCD-5% CVD-Nil SAD-4% C/87660/13 M.S.V Seamec-II 29.10.2002 02.02.2005 08.11.2010 All duties Nil All duties Nil BCD-5% CVD-Nil SAD-4% C/87536/13 M.S.V Seamec- III 19.10.2002 21.04.2003 02.08.2005 01.04.2011 08.11.2011 A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011/Mumbai 11.11.2011 01.12.2011 191, Page No.102 of Volume-VII 12. Revenue at this stage explained that the vessels when first came to India, Bills of Entry were filed in respect of the import thereof and those were assessed to duty under law as well as converted that into coastal run vessels for specific use thereof in ONGC contract for which the vessels were specifically designed and meant for that concern without being commercially usable as passenger or cargo vessels. Those vessels were never foreign-going vessels although appellant falsely claims that to be so in terms of TABLES - 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 submitted by it, as depicted below. No Bills of Entry were filed under section 46 of the Act in respect of value of repair including freight and insurance when the vessels were re-imported under Section 20 of Customs Act into India from time to time upon their repair and thereby duty payable on such value being evaded, adjudications were made to recover such duty with penal consequence of law followed. Seamec-I: TABLE - 6 Date on which Seamec-I went out Date on which the vessel was converted from costal run to foreign run Page No.of appeal No.C/87....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value of repair and freight and insurance incurred against the re-impoted vessels, which is its legal obligation under section 46 of the Act and dutiable. Thereby contravention of the provisions of law was made by the appellant and duty was evaded for which that is sought to be recovered through the adjudications. 14. Placing Para 7.3 of its synopsis, appellant submitted that the Tables above depict knowledge of the customs beginning from 2002 in respect of SEAMAC - I and II and for the period beginning from 2003 against SEAMAC - III. Entire operation of the appellant was within the knowledge of the Customs. Placing Para 2.1 of the synopsis filed, appellant explained that the vessels were exempts from duty for which No duty can be collected. The redemption fine imposed was unwarranted for the reason that there was No question of seizure of the vessels without violation of any of the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. But show cause notice invoked Section 111(m) of the said Act even though in worst circumstances that may attract only Section111(f) or 111(e) of the said Act. So also it is well settled law that when classification issue is involved, there cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oreign-going vessels and the log book maintained for each such vessel proved that the vessels were moving from India and returning back to India clearly indicating the origin and destination thereof as a conveyance only. But, Customs department pressed the appellant to pay customs duty and that is paid under dispute and protest awaiting adjudication. Therefore discharge of the duty as an interim payment on the compulsion should not be treated as admission of the appellant against liability. Similarly, seizure of the vessel and giving custody thereof to the appellant does not mean that lawful seizure was made by Revenue. Therefore, without provision in law to hold that interim payments and seizure are basis to initiate proceeding, entire action of customs is illegal and uncalled for. 20. So far as the issue of classification is concerned, appellant submitted that Revenue failed to prove their stand that the vessels are classifiable under CTH 8905 9090. Appellant relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC) in this regard. 21. Inviting attention to serial No.353 to Notification No.21....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purpose of ONGC without capable of being used commercially as a passenger or cargo carrier. Those were not at all designed for commercial use as conveyance of passengers or cargo. Therefore, appellant's contention that the vessels were foreign-going vessel as defined by section 2(21) of the Act, fails to stand when those are not capable of carrying any passenger or goods but being only used as per terms of contract of the appellant with ONGC as diving support vessels. 24. Placing reliance on page 105 of the appeal record learned AR submits from reply to the show cause notice of the appellant that essential features of the vessel as per technical literature submitted by the appellant demonstrate peculiar character thereof as is evident from page 2 to page 8 and page 16 of the said literature. The encyclopaedia of Ship Technology also brings out that what diving vessel means. According to them at page 184 the meaning thereof reads as under: "Diving support vessel (DSV) - A vessel provided with diving equipment and used for underwater work such as the maintenance and inspection of mobile platforms, pipelines and their connections, well-heads, etc. Today's DSV is a highly sophist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carry out under water and above water visual and NDT inspection, maintenance and repairs of steel structures by Air diving, in water depth of maximum 50 m. 1.2.2 To carry out under water through air diving and above water inspection, maintenance and repair of offshore structures, risers, PLEMs, tanker mooring, de-mooring, maintenance, operations, decommissioning and re-installation of SPMs/SBMs etc. 1.2.3 Deleted. 1.2.3a To carry out repair of risers of sizes 4" to 42" by using repair clamps or sectional replacement (using weld less connectors/ flange connection! direct welding to parent pipe). 1.2.4 To carry out topside (including splash zone) inspection, maintenance and repair of offshore structure - spider deck, risers, boat landing etc. 1.2.5 To provide dive support to various offshore installations, jack up rigs and floaters etc. 1.2.6 To carry out fire fighting operations of offshore installations, rigs, vessels, tankers, etc. in offshore fields, in port and near shore areas. The maximum height of the platform would be around 50 m from MSL. 1.2.7 To provide safety and rescue support to various offshore installations, jack up rigs, floaters. etc. 1.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ports or places in Ceylon or Burma;" 29. According to the above definition 'coastal ship' is employed for movement from one port to another and on the continent of India or between locations on the same continent of inland ports of Indian coasts. Such definition covers the activity of the appellant carried out for ONGC under the contract as aforesaid. This is more clear from Para 1.1 to 1.3 of the annexure at page 171 of the Volume No.VII of the paper book of the appellant. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. V.M. Salgaonkar & Bros. (P) Ltd. reported in 1998 (99) ELT 3 (SC), learned AR for Revenue says that the vessels of the appellant came as "goods" to India having been imported as "goods", went out of India as "goods" only for repair thereof from time to time and re-imported as "goods" were not ocean going ship. That was "goods" only attracting section 2(21) of the Act since those were not capable of carrying any passenger or cargo for their peculiar nature being specifically built to serve purpose of ONGC contract. 30. The vessel in question being only meant for home consumption were used under a contract with ONGC for a specific ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t all fall thereunder without being designed for the same. So far as the tariff heading 8905 is concerned that is explained elaborately by the HSN classification at page 17 and 18 of the compilation filed by Revenue reading as under: "89.05 Light-vessels, fire -floats, dredgers, floating cranes and other vessels the navigability of which is subsidiary to their main function; floating docks; floating or submersible drilling or production platforms. 8905.10 Dredges 8905.20 Floating or submersible drilling or production platforms 8905.90 Other" The tariff entry 8901 reads as under: "8901 Cruise ships, excursion boats, ferry-boats, cargo ships, barges and similar vessels for the transport of persons or goods. 8901 10 - Cruise ships, excursion boats and similar vessels principally designed for the transport of persons; ferry-boats of all kinds: 8901 1010 - Ships 8901 1020 - Launches 8901 1030 - Boats 8901 1040 - Barges 8901 1090 - Other 8901 20 00 - Tankers 8901 30 00 - Refrigerated Vessels, other than those of Sub-heading 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 14/10/2012 (available at page 105 of the appeal folder). 36. When the vessels were made according to the specific drawing and design and imported, that was goods and rightly classified under CTH 8905. When those were going out of India for repair, those were returning with some value addition thereto upon repair. Therefore such value additions were only taxed making proper allegations in the show-cause notice. 37. Shri Mondal citing the example of 21/11/2011 urged that the vessel SEAMAC- I when re-imported was classified under CTH 8905 as is verifiable from page 394 of paper book of volume I of the appellant. The original bill of entry of the appellant filed at the time of first import of the vessel was assessed as that was presented holding the vessel to be goods and there was No appeal against that by the appellant. That reached to finality. Therefore, following decision in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) - 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC), a finalised issue cannot be reopened in terms of Para 6 of the said judgment. Accordingly all the three vessels falling under CTH 8905 90 do not call for re-classification thereof under CTH 890190....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l were cargo or passenger vessel. Further reliance was placed by Revenue on page 259 to 261 of the said volume of the paper book to contend so in respect of other vessels. 41. Filing a comparative chart, Revenue urged that the classification of the vessel and certification by Lloyds Register clearly indicates how the vessels shall be classified and appellant's reliance on the technical details placed before the Tribunal itself brings out that the vessels were not at all capable of carrying any passenger or cargo commercially. 42. So far as SEAMEC-I is concerned, placing page 270 of paper book, Revenue submitted that the vessel was a supply vessel. Placing page 289, it was submitted that SEAMEC- I was not a passenger or cargo vessel and that is undisputed. SEAMEC - II and III was diving vessels only which is also undisputed. Page 286 of the said paper book supports the contention of Revenue that the character of the vessel was supply vessel. Therefore SEAMEC-II goes out of consideration to be held otherwise. Inviting attention to page 294 and 296, Revenue submits that the character of SEAMEC - III neither being cargo nor a passenger vessel, does not support case of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of repair made to all the three vessels from time to time and machinery installed therein at the time of each re-import thereof. Appellant failed to prove that that the vessels were foreign-going vessels. Bill of entry did not disclose the character of the vessel whether it is foreign-going or only coastal running for which the appellant cannot take any advantage of its false documents filed with customs. No documents of appellant showed at any time that its vessels were foreign going and were meant for passenger or cargo transporting. The value addition made to the vessels on repair being available on record that was made liable to duty. That has been done rightly in terms of the adjudication order. 45. So far as the rate of duty is concerned that shall be determinable under section 15(1)(c) of the Act as that was prevailing at the relevant time. Applicable rate of exchange shall apply. Appellant failing to discharge its obligation under law bringing out material facts to the knowledge of the Customs, penalty was rightly imposable following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay - 2001 (138) ELT 1335 and tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cceeds and the vessels are classifiable under CTH 8905 and liable to duty as goods upon re-import into India from time to time as well as penal consequence of law for the breach thereof made. REJOINDER OF APPELLANT 48. In rejoinder, learned Sr. Counsel Shri Sridharan submits that the three proceedings were time-barred and that can be appreciated from the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - I v. M. Square Chemicals - 2008 (231) ELT 194 (SC) and Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. v. Union of India - 1992 (60) ELT 110 (Guj.). The sum and substance of the judgments is that when the materials are borne by record and the appellant has disclosed what that was required to be disclosed to the Customs, there cannot be any presumption of suppression or non-fulfilment of obligations of the appellant. Show cause notice cannot be issued on mere assumptions, presumption and suspicions. The show cause notice in the present cases did not invoke section 111(l) of Customs Act, 1962 to confiscate the vessels. Section 111(m) of the said Act is not applicable for non-fulfilment of ingredients thereof. The Shipping Corpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty of customs and additional duty of customs equal to the quantum of excise duty not payable in India since excess over that is exempt. Therefore, Revenue's levy of additional duty of customs is contrary to law. Thus he says that Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is a bar to impose duty and additional duty. 51. Placing Section 86 of the Customs Act, 1962 appellant's submission is that if there is any ship stores in the ship that may be taxed but not the ship. Accordingly, that section does not levy tax on the ship. Therefore the meaning of Section 2(38) of the Customs Act, 1962 defining the term "stores" shall not be construed to be the vessel for which Section 86 does not warrant any filing of bill of entry. 52. The decision of the Tribunal in Arcadia Shipping Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad - 2006 (201) ELT 139 (Tri. Mumbai) is applicable to the case of the appellant. A barge with diving equipment was subject matter of decision in that case. Para 4 of the said judgment is relevant to appreciate the case of the appellant. Appellant's submission is that Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof to bring the vessel into CTH 8905. Mere navigability is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntenance, operations, decommissioning and re-installation of SPMs/SBMs etc. 1.2.3 Deleted. 1.2.3a To carry out repair of risers of sizes 4" to 42" by using repair clamps or sectional replacement (using weld less connectors/ flange connection! direct welding to parent pipe). 1.2.4 To carry out topside (including splash zone) inspection, maintenance and repair of offshore structure - spider deck, risers, boat landing etc. 1.2.5 To provide dive support to various offshore installations, jack up rigs and floaters. etc. 1.2.6 To carry out fire fighting operations of offshore installations, rigs, vessels, tankers, etc. in offshore fields, in port and near shore areas. The maximum height of the platform would be around 50 m from MSL. 1.2.7 To provide safety and rescue support to various offshore installations, jack up rigs, floaters etc. 1.2.8 To carry out/assist in rescue operations and fulfill role of rapid intervention vessel" 1.2.9 To carry out pollution control, operations. 1.2.10 To provide medical facilities within the capabilities of the vessel. 1.2.11 To accommodate additional pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia or any port outside India. In such circumstance, the vessels remained as "goods" only not only at the time of first entry thereof into India but also during re-imports made from time to time on repair thereof. Re-import of goods under Section 20 of the Act is permitted under law when the exported goods came to India again goes back out of India for repairs Partial duty concession/exemption is available to the re-import as is covered by the aforesaid notification. Revenue discharged its burden of proof bringing the goods to CTH 89059090 in view of technical character of vessels ruling out their adoptability by CTH 89019090. 57. It is an established fact from record that the appellant had never filed any Shipping Bill nor filed Bills of Entry in respect of cost of repair and machinery installed therein and freight and insurance incurred, upon re-import of the vessels from time to time, although filing thereof is mandatory under Section 46 of the Act. The Bills of Entry filed were only in respect of bunker, store and consumables. Such stores and consumables only suffered duty and Revenue has No grievance thereon. But, without the Bills of Entry being filed against the cost of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsurance incurred and machinery installed, if any, to receive examination of Customs following the mandate of the Notification No.94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996 to order for levy, if any imposable. Revenue is correct to submit that the appellant never filed any Bills of Entry in respect of the value of such repair and modifications done to all the three re-imported goods i.e. vessels from time to time in absence of any evidence in that regard. 60. Appellant\'s further plea that copy of the documents at page 80 and 81 of the Paper book, Vol-VII exhibits that at the time of moving the vessels out of India, those were converted from "coastal-run" to "foreign-run" and "foreign-run" to "coastal-run" in return is of No help to the appellant to avoid the duty liability arose in the manner indicated above for the reason that the vessels remained as "goods" only all along and never been foreign-going vessel as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act, which reads as under: - "(21) "foreign-going vessel or aircraft" means any vessel or aircraft for the time being engaged in the carriage of goods or passengers between any port or airport in India and any port or airport outside India, whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty : [Provided that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel or the arrival of the aircraft [or the vehicle] by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards or the arrival, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post. [Emphasis supplied]. 64. Revenue having categorically said in the show-cause notice that the Basic Customs Duty on Ocean going vessel being payable along with the additional duty and other levies as envisaged by Notification No.94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996, that shall be ascertainable in accordance with law and any duty exemption under law is permissible. Therefore, in so far as levy of duty on the value of repair undertaken is concerned, value of machinery if any, installed therein and freight and insurance charges incurred, there shall be No difference to such proposition of Revenue. That s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Accordingly, filing of Bill of Entry is mandatory in case of re-import. Supreme Court in Para 7 of the judgment in the above said case held as under: "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the definition of "import" as given in clause (23) of Section 2 imported goods would include re-imported goods as well and therefore the goods sent out of India and re-imported would also be liable to payment of duty in the same manner in which they would have been liable if imported for the first time in India. In the matter of goods sent out for repairs only there is Exemption Notification No.204/76. The benefit thereof has been taken by the appellant....." [Emphasis supplied] 68. The principle of law laid down in Tata Tea Case (supra) was followed in the case of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. V. CC, New Delhi - 2008 (225) ELT 401 (SC). Therefore Appellant fails to succeed in its pleading that there is No requirement of filing of bill of entry on re-import when that is mandate of section20 read with section 46 of the Act. 69. It has been he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umption of the article, albeit that article retaining its identity even after its use, following the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Union of India V. V. M. Salgaoncar & Bros. (P) Ltd - 1998 (99) ELT 3 (SC). A Constitution Bench of Apex Court has considered the ambit of the word "consumption" in Article 286 of the Constitution in M/s. Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. v. State of Bombay (now Maharasthra) and Others[1961 (1) SCR 709]. Their Lordships observed thus: "Consumption consists in the act of taking such advantage of the commodities and services produced as constitutes the "utilization" thereof. For each commodity, there is ordinarily what is generally considered to be the final act of consumption. For some commodities, there may be even more than one kind of final consumption ........................................... In the absence of any words to limit the connotation of the word "consumption" to the final act of consumption, it will be proper to think that the Constitution-makers used the word to connote any kind of user which is ordinarily spoken of as consumption of the particular commodity."[Emphasis supplied] In another decision a two Judge Bench of Hon'ble S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of C.C.(Imports), Mumbai Vs. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre - 2001 (132) ELT 257 (SC). 73. Appellant's plea that Show Cause Notice intended confiscation under section 111(m) of the Act instead of section 111(e) and 111(f) of the Act is of No significance for the reason that there is No dispute that the officer who made the demand was competent to make demands under law as well confiscate the gods. Following the principle of law laid down in the case of J. K. Steel Ltd. Vs. UOI - 1978 (2) ELT J355 (SC) if the exercise of a power can be traced to a legitimate source, the fact that the same was purported to have been exercised under a different power does not vitiate the exercise of the power in question. This is a well-settled proposition of law. In this connection reference may usefully be made to the decisions of this Court in P. Balakotaiah v. The Union of India, 1958 SCR 1052 = (AIR 1958 SC 232) and Afzal Ulah v. State of U.P., 1964 - 4 SCR 991 = (AIR 1964 SC 264). Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. Pradyumna steel Ltd.- 1996 (82) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.) has also held that it is settled that mere mention of a wrong provision of l....