2014(03)LCX0115
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and H.K. Thakur, Member (T)
Commissioner of Custom, Ahmedabad
Versus
AFFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
Final Order No. A/10499/2014-WZB/AHD, dated 10-3-2014 in Appeal No. C/13649/2013-DB
Advocated By -
S/Shri Raju and K. Shivakumar (AR), for the Appellant.
Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : H.K. Thakur, Member (T)]. -
This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the OIA No. 329/2013/CUS/Commr.(A)/AHD, dated 6-8-2013 classifying Self Elevating Platform (SEP) SAMRAT imported by the respondent under CTH 8905 90 90 when Revenue is claiming the classification of SEP under CTH 8905 20 00.
2. Shri Raju (Commissioner) (AR) and Shri K. Sivakumar, Add. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that as per the website downloads the SEP built by Drydocks World for the respondent, has an option for mounting of drills, piling operations and pile load testing. It was thus their case that 'SEP Samrat' imported by the respondent needs to be classified under CTH 8905 20 00 as a drilling platform.
3. Shri S.J. Vyas (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that SEP imported was neither a Dredger of CTH 8905 01 00 nor a drilling/production platform. It was his case that imported goods have been correctly classified under CTH 8905 90 90 as floating cranes and eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012. Ld. Advocate relied upon the case law of C.C., Chennai v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2013 (293) ELT 0035 (Tri.-Chennai)]. Where Jack-up-Barges (without drilling or production capability) were held to be classifiable under CTH 8905 90 90 and not under CTH 8905 20 00. He also furnishes a copy of a certificate dated 11-6-2012 (relied upon by the first appellate authority), from Marine Consultants & Engineer Surveyors, Dubai, UAE; certifying, inter alia, that SEP Samrat platform is not a floating Dock or Submersible drilling or production platform.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is regarding the correct classification of a floating platform SEP Samrat imported by the importer. Respondent importer claimed the classification of SEP Samrat under CTH 8905 90 90 whereas Revenue is claiming the classification of the imported goods under CTH 8905 20 00. SEP Samrat at the time of Import has one Manitowoc 18000 crane (Turret Mounted Crane) along with six mooring winches, gen sets, Jacking system, power packs, pumps & other miscellaneous equipments. However, there were no other equipments like drills or production equipments mounted on the floating platform SEP Samrat, but as per the website literature of Drydocks World SEP Samrat, manufactured for importer Affcons Infrastructure Ltd., had the option for mounting drills. As per the description of CTH 8905 the categories covered under this heading include goods, inter alia, dredgers, floating cranes, floating or submersible drilling or production platform etc. A plain reading of description of CTH 8905 convey that dredgers, floating cranes and floating or submersible drilling or production platforms have been treated as separately identified groups under CTH 8905. Heading CTH 8905 has been further subdivided into CTH 8905 01 00 (for dredgers), CTH 8905 20 00 (for drilling/production platforms - whether floating or submersible) and CTH 8905 90 90 (for all others including floating cranes). It is not disputed that at the time of import SEP Samrat had a 18 ton crane mounted on it and did not have drilling equipments fixed. CTH 8905 20 00 will cover only drill-ing/production platforms (whether floating or submersible) which has equipments required for drilling or production fitted on it. This interpretation is fortified by the HSN explanatory notes relied upon by the first appellate authority in Para 5.4 of the OIA, dated 6-8-2013. Even the certificate dated 11-6-2013, issued by Marine Consultants & Engineer Surveyors, also convey that SEP Samrat is not a drilling or production platform. In view of the above, it has to be held that SEP Samrat imported by the respondent without drilling or production capability is correctly classifiable under CTH 8905 90 90. This view is supported by the judgment of Chennai - CESTAT, in the case of C.C., Chennai v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) where Jack-up-Barges without capability of drilling or production, have been held to be classifiable under CTH 8905 90 90. In view of the above observations, we find no justification in interfering with the orders passed by the first appellate authority.
5. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected with consequential relief to the respondent, if any.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)
Equivalent 2014 (306) ELT 0664 (Tri. - Ahmd.)