2014(03)LCX0029

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD [COURT NO. I]

S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and H.K. Thakur, Member (T)

ASHOK KHETRAPAL

Versus

CQJAMNAGAR

Final Order Nos. A/10367-10368/2014-WZB/AHD, dated 12-3-2014 in Appeal Nos. C/10948 & 10965/2013-DB

Cases Quoted -

Brakes India Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2007(01)LCX0057 Eq 2008 (221) ELT 0300 (Tribunal) - Referred [Para 3]
CGU Logistic Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2011(06)LCX0134 Eq 2011 (274) ELT 0075 (Tribunal) - Relied on [Paras 3,5.2]
Collector v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2000(08)LCX0243 Eq 2000 (120) ELT 0285 (S.C.) - Relied on [Paras 3,5.7]
Collector v. Vipul Shipyard - 1996(10)LCX0059 Eq 1996 (088) ELT 0640 (S.C.) - Referred [Para 3]
Commissioner v. Lord Shiva Overseas - 2004(11)LCX0096 Eq 2005 (181) ELT 0213 (Tribunal) - Referred [Para 3]
Commissioner v. Waterways Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. - 2011(12)LCX0239 Eq 2013 (297) ELT 0077 (Tribunal)
- Relied on [Para 3,4,5.2]
Hal Offshore Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2014 (303) ELT 0199 (Tribunal)
- Relied on [Para 3,5.2]
Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2004(09)LCX0236 Eq 2004 (172) ELT 0145 (S.C.)
- Relied on [Paras 3,5.7]
Union of India v. V.M. Salgaoncar & Bros. (P) Ltd. - 1998(03)LCX0068 Eq 1998 (099) ELT 0003 (S.C.)
- Relied on [Para 3, 5.1,5.2]
Vipul Shipyard v. Collector - 1984(07)LCX0011 Eq 1985 (019) ELT 0122 (Tribunal) - Referred [Para 3]
Vittesse Export Import v. Commissioner - 2007(10)LCX0109 Eq 2008 (224) ELT 0241 (Tribunal) - Referred [Para 3]

Advocated By -

Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant.
S/Shri Raju, joint Commissioner (DR) and K. Siva-kumar, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent.

[Order per : H.K. Thakur, Member (T)]. -

These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the OIO No. lO/Commissioner/2012, dated 23-1-2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jarrinagar. Appeal No. C/10965/2013 is filed by M/s. Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation (P) Ltd., Porvo-rim, Goa (Importer) against the classification of the vessel Pride of Goa (POG), Loading of value of POG, confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties. The other appellant is Shri Ashok Khetrapal, Director of the importer, with respect to the penalties imposed upon him by the adjudicating authority.


2. Brief facts of the case are that the importer imported one old and used Casino Vessel Pride of Goa at Bedi Port Jamnagar and filed a bill of entry giving the following description :-
"One unit old and used Casino vessel, "Pride of Goa" (Formerly known as (Southern Star-II), Built in Dec. 1994 in Louisiana (USA), 66.1 mtrs length, 23.8 mtr Breadth, 4.5 mtrs Dosta, CRT:3546, MRT:1089, including apparel, appurtenances and all other parts, machineries equipment and accessories and all other parts, machineries equipment and accessories inside (838-Casino Machines and Casino-Game Tables & Accessories, Surveillance Systems including 15 Monitors & 5 Recording Devices,' Casino safe Deposit Systems, Weather Dock Chairs & Tables)."
The classification of vessel POG was claimed by the importer as CTH 8901 10 10 and was assessed to Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 (Sr. No. 352). An intelligence Was received by DRI to the effect that classification of POG by the importer has been misdeclared as CTH 8901 10 10 instead of CTH 8903 99 90 and that importer also misdeclared the value at the time of import to evade payment of Customs duty. After detailed investigation, a show cause notice, was issued to the appellants, inter alia, demanding duty and proposing imposition of penalties by invoking extended period. After following the principles of natural justice, the classification of POG was held to be CTH 8903 99 90 by the adjudicating authority. He also confirmed duty demand and imposed penalties upon the appellants.


3. Shri K.K. Anand (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellants, inter alia, made the following arguments/submissions :-
(i) That the Casino vessel POG was properly described in the bill of entry which was finally assessed as per the description given and the registration certificates made available to the assessing authorities.

(ii) That once assessment is done on the bill of entry, the same can be opened by the Revenue subsequently invoking extended period, by way of raising the demand because assessment finally made cannot be reviewed if not challenged by the Department. Ld. Advocate relied, inter alia, upon the following case laws to support his argument :-

(a) Priya Blue Industries v. CC (P) [2004(09)LCX0236 Eq 2004 (172) ELT 0145 (S.C.)]

(b) CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000(08)LCX0243 Eq 2000 (120) ELT 0285 (S.C.)]

(c) CC (Imports), Mumbai v. Lord Shiva Overseas [2004(11)LCX0096 Eq 2005 (181) ELT 0213 (Tri.-Mum.)]

(d) Vittessee Export Import v. CC (LP), Mumbai [2007(10)LCX0109 Eq 2008 (224) ELT 0241 (Tri.-Mum.)]

(e) Brakes India Ltd. v. CC, Chennai [2007(01)LCX0057 Eq 2008 (221) ELT 0300 (Tri.-Che.)]

(iii) That classification of POG was correctly made under CTH 8901 as the same is a category of Passenger Ship, (Special Trade Passenger. Ship, according to Section 3(24), (25), (47B) and (47C) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and as per the registration certificates issued by the competent authorities in India, and cannot be classified under 8903 because vessels for pleasure or sports under 8903 are the vessels for pleasure or sport for the private use of the owner and not for commercial use as in the case of POG.

(iv) That importer's case is more appropriately covered by the Order No. A/101-107/2013/CSTB/C-I, dated 7-11-2012 passed by CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Hal Offshore Ltd. v. CC Mumbai J2012(11)LCX0178 Eq 2014 (303) ELT 0119 (Tri.-Mum.)J. That reliance placed by Revenue on the case law of CCE v. M/s Waterways Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (12) TMI 127-CESTAT Mumbai = 2011(12)LCX0239 Eq 2013 (297) ELT 0077 (Tri.-Mum.)l is misplaced as in that case, the vessel was specially retrofitted with anintention to convert the ship into a pleasure vessel. He made the Bench go through this judgment relied upon by the Revenue and also highlighted the difference in the structure of POG and the ship M.V. Southern Star in M/s Waterways Shipyard case as per his written submissions filed during the course of hearing. It was also his case that the following case laws were not cited before the Mumbai Bench in the case of Waterways Shipyard case :-

(a) Vipul Shipyard, Bombay v. CCE, Bombay [1985 (19) ELT
122 (Tribunal)]

(b) CCE, Baroda v. Vipul Shipyard [1996(10)LCX0059 Eq 1996 (088) ELT 0640 (S.C.)]

(c) UOI v. V.M. Salgaoncar & Bros. (P) Ltd. [1998(03)LCX0068 Eq 1998 (099) ELT 0003 (S.C.)]

(d) CGU Logistic Ltd. v. CC (I), Mumbai [2011(06)LCX0134 Eq 2011 (274) ELT 0075 (Tri.-Mumbai)]

(v) That end use of the vessel is not the determining factor for classification of a vessel under CTH 8901 as per Apex Court's decision in the case of UOI v. V.M. Salgaoncar case (supra). That as POG is designed to carry the passengers, therefore, the same is correctly classifiable under CTH 8901 as a passenger ship specially designed to carry passengers, on the basis of certifications done by various authorities under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. Ld. Advocate especially made the Bench go through the definitions given in the Merchant Shipping Act, Section 3(1), (13), (18), (24), (25), (38), (39), (45), (47A), (47B), (47C) and (55) of the Act. It was strongly emphasized by the Advocate that POG is a Special Trade Passenger Ship classifiable under CTH 8901 and not a pleasure vessel of CTH 8903.

(vi) That as per the certificates issued under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, there should be specified number of crew always on board which is required for a passenger ship and such a facility of having crew on board was not existing in the ship M.V. Southern Star before CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CCE, Goa v. Waterways Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. case.

(vii) That POG was brought from Jamnagar to Goa on its self-propulsion only which confirm the voyage capability of the vessel POG in deep sea.

(viii)That valuation of POG has been correctly declared as per Para 3.1 of the agreement between the importer and the supplier and that the contract was C&F and no extra amount has neither been repatriated to the seller or brought on record by the investigation. That even in interim reply to the show cause notice at Page 152/Vol. I, the appellant had explained that the vessel was initially to be purchased from its original owner M/s. Bediford Entertainment Corporation, Hou ston, USA for 350 thousand US dollars and the draft agreement was entered into for the same. However, the original owner of the vessel wanted full payment in advance. Accordingly, the draft agreement was prepared. However, upon enquiring with the Banks of India the purchaser was informed that as per the RBI Rules only 100 thousand US dollars could be given as advance and the balance amount could be paid to the supplier only on receipt of the goods in India. Hence the vessel was purchased through M/s Wave Master Ship Supplies Pte. Ltd. who were brokers in the same purchase. The draft agreement was suitably modified with mainly 2 changes. The purchase price was increased from 350 thousand dollars to 450 thousand US Dollars to include freight, insurance and brokerage. Secondly, the payment terms were changed where 100 thousand US dollars were paid as advance and the balance 350 thousand US dollars were to be paid after arrival of the ship in India. That in Clause 3.1 the term of sale, it is very clearly mentioned place of delivery as CFR Singapore/India whereas in Clause 11.4 place of delivery at safe berth in Orange Taxes remained inadvertently.

(ix) On the issue of submission of two Bills of Lading (Page 575-576/Vol. II), it was submitted that Bill of Lading which was submitted with the Bill of Entry (Page 572) clearly provided that freight was paid. The copy of the other Bill of Lading was never submitted by the appellant to the Customs. The appellant was not at all aware about the existence of second Bill of Lading. In any event in this purported Bill of Lading there was a reference to Contract No. 10108, dated May 07 2007. No such contract ever existed. No enquiry was conducted in this regard by the DRI. The appellant was never asked about the execution of any such contract with supplier. On the contrary, when Shri Ashok Khetrapal, the Director was queried about the existence of another Bill of Lading Shri Ashok Khetrapal in his statement dated 21-11-2011 (Page 555/Vol. II) categorically stated that they did not hide anything from the Customs and had paid under C&F for the import of this vessel.

(x) That insurance cover of POG was taken on higher side after clearance and on account of additional equipments fitted on the vessel after the clearance from the Customs.


4. Shri Raju, Commissioner (A.R.) and Shri K. Sivakumar, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, inter alia, made the following submissions/arguments in support of the adjudication order passed by the adjudicating authority :-

(i) That the present case is squarely covered by the order of CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CCE v. Waterways Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where the vessel involved was also a Casino vessel and was held classifiable under CTH 8903.

(ii) That once the ship is declared as a Casino vessel, then the same automatically goes to the category of vessel for pleasure or sport when the same was meant to be used in a stationary condition at Goa.

(iii) That vessel POG does not carry passengers from one place to another as the Casino vessel is stationary.

(iv) Ld. A.Rs. relied upon certain computer printouts downloaded from a website to establish that POG was always designed to be a Casino vessel for pleasure and games and was rightly classified under CTH 8903 by the adjudicating authority.

(v) On undervaluation of POG, it was argued that as per contract entered between M/s Wave Master Ship Supplies Pvt. Ltd. Singapore and the appellant, the vessel was purchased and taken over on 'as is where is' basis. That fact of freight paid by the appellant was well within their knowledge and was correctly added to the assessable value.

(vi) That importer has deliberately suppressed the fact of the imported vessel being Casino vessel for pleasure and that it was never intended to be used for the purpose envisaged under CTH 8901, as held by adjudicating authority in Para 27 of the OIO. That there was wilful misdeclaration and suppression of facts, pertaining to payment of freight and insurance charges and thus extended period was correctly" invoked.


5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeals is mainly regarding correct classification of a vessel 'Pride of Goa' (POG) imported by the importer. The short point is whether the vessel POG should be considered as a passenger ship primarily designed for the transport of persons (CTH 8901) or it should be classified as vessel for pleasure or sport under CTH 8903. Argument of the importer is that POG is a passenger ship of heading 8901 primarily designed to carry passengers, as POG is capable of taking passengers on it and is also capable of moving from one place to another with a maximum speed of 10 knots. On the other hand, Revenue is of the view that POG is a Casino vessel and was always a pleasure vessel and that it was intended to be made stationary at Goa and was not moving from one place to another place in the sea/river.

5.1 On the issue of classification of the vessel POG, the adjudicating authority has mainly relied upon the fact that the vessel is a Casino vessel and is intended to be made stationary for use as a casino even if it is capable of making voyages in the open sea. On the other hand, importer has come out with the ar-gument that the end use of the vessel should not be made as the basis for classifying a vessel under the Customs Tariff Act. This issue, whether end use of imported goods should be made the basis of classification was decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI v. V.M. Salegaoncar a Brs (P) Ltd. (supra). In that
case, appellants imported transhippers which were vessels used for carrying cargo loaded from the harbour and carry the same for unloading cargo into the large vessels. The issue before the Apex Court was whether such transhippers should be considered as ocean going vessels when they were not actually meant to be going to high seas/oceans. While holding the transhippers to be ocean go ing vessels and eligible to exemption under Customs Notification dated 11-10-1958, the following observations were made by the Apex Court in Para 20 :-
"20. We do not think that, in the present case, the question whether a transshipping vessel is an ocean going vessel, can solely rest on the test of its dominant use to which their owners put them at times. Use may vary from season to season, port to port and also managers to managers. So, in this area of understanding use of article stands down staged, and the Court must look at to know what actually the commodity is."

5.2 In the light of above law laid down by Apex Court and the conflicting judgment of CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CCE v. Waterways Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. (supra), CGU Logistics Ltd. v. CC (I), Mumbai (supra) and Hal Offshore Ltd v. CC, Mumbai (supra), it has to be seen as to what is the nature of vessel POG. Whether it is a 'Passenger Ship' or a 'Pleasure vessel'. The words 'Passenger', 'Passenger Ship' and 'Pleasure Vessel' have neither been defined under the Customs Tariff Act nor in the HSN explanatory notes. The words 'Passenger' and 'Passenger Ship' 'Special Trade Passenger' and 'Special Trade Passenger Ship'
have been defined under Section 3(24) and 3(25), 3(47B) and 3(47C) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 as follows :-

"3. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(24) "Passenger" means any person carried on board a ship except -

(a) a person employed or engaged in any capacity on board the ship on the business of the ship;

(b) a person on board the ship either in pursuance of the obligations laid upon the master to carry shipwrecked, distressed or other persons or by reason of any circumstances which neither the master nor the character, if any, could have prevented or forestalled;

(c) a child under one year of age;

(25) "Passenger ship" means a ship carrying more than twelve passengers;"
(47B) "Special trade passenger" means a passenger carried in special trade passenger ship in spaces on the weather deck or upper deck or between decks which accommodate more than eight passengers and includes a pilgrim or a person accompanying a pilgrim;
(47C) "Special trade passenger ship" means a mechanically propelled ship carrying more than thirty special trade passengers."
From the above definitions, it is not necessary, as contended by the Revenue that a passenger has to be carried from one place to another in a ship in order to hold that a vessel is a "passenger ship". A person taken on board a vessel will also be considered as a passenger as per the above definitions. Various certificates issued by the competent authorities in favour of POG, as per Section 3(38) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, also convey that POG is a passenger ship. It is observed from Para 3 of the order passed by CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CGU Logistics Ltd v. CC (I), Mumbai [2011(06)LCX0134 Eq 2011 (274) ELT 0075 (Tri-Mum)] that similar certificates were considered for classifying a vessel as cargo ship of CTH 8901 when special equipments were fitting on it for doing special tasks and Revenue was claiming the classification under CTH 8905.

5.3 It is further observed from the HSN explanatory notes.under Heading 89.03 that the notes talk of all vessels for pleasure or sport. However, while specifying the inclusions mainly the notes talk of small boats like rowing boats, canoes, sail boats, motor boats, dinghies, sports fishing vessels, inflatable craft and boats, lifeboats propelled by oars, Yachts, etc. At the same time, neither the Customs Tariff Act nor the HSN Explanatory Notes say that all Casino vessels are vessels for pleasure or sport.

5.4 A definition of 'Pleasure vessel' appears in The Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sports or Pleasure) Regulations, 1988, issued as per the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17-5-1993. As per these Regulations,
"Pleasure Vessel" means -
(a) any vessel which at the time it is being used is :
(i) (aa) in the case of a vessel wholly owned by an individual or individuals; used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner; or
(bb) in the case of a vessel owned by a body corporate, used only for sport or pleasure and on which the persons on board are employees or officers of the body corporate, or their immediate family or friends; and
(ii) on a voyage or excursion which is one for which the 'own-
er does not receive money for or in connection with operating the vessel or carrying any person, other than as a contribution to the direct expenses of the operation of the vessel incurred during the voyage or excursion; or
(b) any vessel wholly owned by or on behalf of a members' club formed for the purpose of sport or pleasure which, at the time it is being used, it used only for the sport or pleasure of members of that club or their immediate family, and for the use of which any charges levied are paid into club funds and applied for the general use of the club; and
(c) in the case of any vessel referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) above no other payments are made by or on behalf of users of the vessel, other than by the owner."


5.5 Above definition of a pleasure vessel gives support to the argument made by the Advocate of the importer that a vessel for pleasure or sport should be meant for personal consumption/use of the person/owner of a vessel. It is evident from the facts on record that the vessel POG imported by the importer is not used for personal use of the owner for pleasure or sport but is used for commercial purposes as a 'Casino vessel'. There is thus force in the argument of the importer that when the appropriate authorities under Section 3(38) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, by issuing required certificates, have opined POG to be a passenger ship or Special Trade Passenger Ship then there is no ground for the adjudicating authority to hold that POG is not a passenger ship designed to carry passengers when no contrary opinion of another competent authority is brought on record saying that POG is a vessel for pleasure or sport.

5.6 Temporary use of POG in a stationary position will not change the classification of POG when the same is capable of moving across the seas/oceans but has to be mostly made stationary due to the restrictions imposed by the local laws. It will be a strange situation to classify a vessel under CTH 8901 if used for making trips to open sea, with a night halt arrangement in the sea, but classify the same vessel under CTH 8903 if used in a predominantly stationary position. In view of the above observations, we are of the opinion that Casino vessel POG imported by the importer is principally designed to carry passengers and has been correctly assessed under CTH 8901.


5.7 Another argument taken by the importer appellant is that once original assessment is made on a bill of entry is not challenged then no further demand can be raised afterwards on the same issue. Importer has relied upon several case laws in support of this argument as indicated in Para 3(ii) above. Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases held that an assessee cannot seek a relief by way of refund without the assessment order being reviewed in appeal as follows :-

(i) Priya Blue Industries Ltd v. CC (Preventive) - 2004(09)LCX0236 Eq 2004 (172) ELT 0145 (S.C.)

"6. We are unable to accept this submission. Just such a contention has been negatived by this Court in Flock (India)'s case (supra). Once an Order of Assessment is passed the duty would be payable as per that order. Unless that order of assessment has been reviewed under Section 28 and /or modified in an Appeal that Order stands. So long as the Order of Assessment stands the duty would be payable as per that Order of Assessment. A refund claim is not an Appeal proceeding. The Officer considering a refund claim cannot sit in Appeal over an assessment made by a competent officers. The officer considering the refund claim cannot also review an assessment order.

8. The words "in pursuance of an Order of Assessment" only indicate the party/person who can make a claim for refund. In other words, they enable a person who has paid duty in pursuance of an Order of Assessment to claim refund. These words do not lead to the conclusion that without the Order of Assessment having been modified in Appeal or reviewed a claim for refund can be maintained."

(ii) Collr. of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) P. Ltd. - 2000(08)LCX0243 Eq 2000 (120) ELT 0285 (S.C.)
"10. Coming to the question that is raised there is little scope for doubt that in a case where an adjudicating authority has passed an order which is appealable under the statute and the party aggrieved did not choose to exercise the statutory right of filing an appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund on the ground that the adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order. If this position is accepted then the provisions for adjudication in the Act and the Rules, the provision for appeal in the Act and the Rules will lose their relevance and the entire exercise will be rendered redundant. This position in our view, will run counter to the scheme of the Act and will introduce an element of uncertainty in the entire process of levy and collection of excise duty. Such a position cannot, be countenanced. The view taken by us also gain support from the provision in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 wherein it is laid down that where as a result of any order passed in appeal or revision under the Act, refund of any duty becomes due to any person, the proper officer, may refund, the amount to such person without his having to make any claim in that behalf. The provision indicates the importance attached to an order of the appellate or revisional authority under the Act therefore, an order which is appealable under the Act is not challenged then the order is not liable to be questioned and the matter is not to be reopened in a proceeding for refund which if we may term it so is in the nature of execution of a decree/order. In the case at hand it was specifically mentioned in the order of the Assistant Collector that the as-sessee may file appeal against the order before the Collector (Ap-peals) if so advised."

5.8 In the absence of any new facts unearthed by the investigation to indicate fraud/wilful misstatement in the declared description given on the bill of entry with intention to evade duty, the classification of POG already made by the Revenue becomes final and can also not be opened by the Revenue by way of demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 invoking extended period.


6. Another argument taken by the appellant importer is that the demand is time-barred as full and correct description was shown in the bill of entry. It is observed from the facts available on record that the following description of the imported vessel was given in the bill of entry filed by the importer :-
"One unit old and used Casino vessel, "Pride of Goa" (Formerly known as (Southern Star-II), Built in Dec. 1994 in Louisiana (USA), 66.1 mtrs length, 23.8 mtr Breadth, 4.5 mtrs Dosta, CRT : 3546, MRT:1089, including apparel, appurtenances and all other parts, machineries equipment and accessories inside (838-Casino Machines and Casino-Game Tables & Accessories, Surveillance Systems- including 15 Monitors & 5 Recording Devices, Casino safe Deposit Systems, Weather Dock Chairs & Tables)."
The above bill of entry was assessed by the assessing officer, cleared by concurrent audit and countersigned by the proper officer. Even the classification declared by the importer was underlined and specifically a handwritten mention of exemption of Sr. No. 352 of exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Customs, dated 1-3-2002 was made on the bill of entry. The details like vessel being a 'Casino vessel' has completely been declared by the importer while giving the description of the goods. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was any suppression, much less suppression with intention to evade Customs duty, on the part of the importer to wilfully claim a wrong classification. The onus of making a correct classification including availment of a correct exemption notification, lies upon the assessing officers. The duty of the importer was to give the correct and detailed description which has been discharged. Imported goods are also subjected to exemption before allowing out of charge. Under the circumstances, issue of a demand by invoking the extended period is also required to be set aside as time-barred.


7. On the issue of undervaluation, we are not expressing our opinion as on the issue of classification of POG and its assessments have been correctly made and it is held that any value addition will not have effect on duty when the vessel of CTH 8901 imported by the appellant stood exempted under an exemption notification.


8. Once on merits the issue has been decided in favour of the importer appellant, there is no point in imposing penalties upon the appellants under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 which are accordingly set aside.


9. In view of the above observations, appeals filed by the appellants are allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 12-3-2014)

Equivalent 2014 (304) ELT 0408 (Tri. - Ahmd.)