The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai ordered fresh adjudication to decide claim of appellant for fitment within heading 8906 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The issue concerned is regarding the import of ‘old and used self-propelled platform supply vessel Sagar Fortune’ as declared in bill of entry no. 2630993/28.07.2017 filed on behalf of M/s SS Offshore Pvt Ltd by M/s Babaji Shivram Clearing and Carriers Pvt Ltd, a licenced customs broker, in which the classification and valuation was altered for recovery of differential duty of ₹ 3,53,25,921 under section 28 (4) of Customs Act, 1962, along with applicable interest thereon, besides confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of fine of ₹ 2,50,00,000. In addition, differential duty of ₹ 24,36,879 on 1,33,000 litres of ‘high-speed diesel’, 9220 litres of ‘lubricating oil’ and 5250 litres of ‘hydraulic oil’ was ordered for recovery under section 28 (4) of Customs Act, 1962, along with applicable interest thereon, besides being confiscated under section 111(l) and section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of ₹ 6,00,000 as fine.
Penalties under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 was imposed on the importer and other appellants herein in addition to penalties under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Sachin Kshirsagar is the Director of theimporting company and Shri Harish H Bhatia is the proprietor of M/s Harish and Company, the chartered engineer engaged by the importer for appraisal of the value of the impugned vessel.
C J Mathew, Technical Member and Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member held that “Detailed analysis of the design of the vessel led to the conclusion that tariff item 8905 9090 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is an appropriate description.
In the light of inadequacy, we are unable to firm up on the applicable classification for want of determination in the impugned order between heading 8905 and heading 8906 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. That gap must be bridged to enable which we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority for a fresh decision on the claim of the appellant for fitment within heading 8906 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
