COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Appeal No.193/2003 -Cus. dated 31 -12 -2003 by which Customs duty has been levied in respect of fire float manufactured in -bond. The appellants have imported raw material and spare parts for the manufacture of fire float under Notification No. 21/2002 -Cus. dated 1 -3 -2002 (Sl. No. 353) which granted the benefit of exemption of customs duty when the said raw materials were manufactured goods falling inter alia under heading 8905 in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. There is no condition in the notification for export of the goods. The appellants, a PSU unit, have taken permission to contest the matter and contended that the fire float manufactured in -bond is not imported goods, but it has been manufactured in India. For the goods manufactured in India, the rate of duty is NIL. However the Commissioner did not agree with the assessees contention and held that the goods manufactured in -bond is required for export purpose. As the same has not been exported, they are required to charge customs duty. This is seriously contested by the appellants on the ground that there is no condition in the said notification for exporting the goods manufactured in -bond. For the goods manufactured in bond and in India, no customs duty is leviable. The learned Counsel submits that in their own case, in a subsequent matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order -in -Appeal No. 141/2004 dated 19 -8 -2004 has appreciated the matter and after due consideration, he has agreed with the assessees contention that no customs duty is leviable as the manufacture of final goods taken place in India and that the item has not been exported. The learned Counsel submits that the Order -in -Appeal No. 141/2004 has not been appealed by the Revenue, therefore it has become final.

(2.) The learned DR submits that the impugned order is legal and proper and the same has been rendered in the light of the Tribunal judgment in the case of Mustan Taherbhai v. CC, Ahmedabad [2000 (125) E.L.T. 1001].

(3.) In counter, the learned Counsel submits that this judgment is clearly distinguishable and pertains to breaking of ocean going vessels and the provisions of Notification No. 21/2002 -Cus. was applied therein, while in the present case, there was no import of any ocean going vessel. They had imported only spare parts and raw materials for the manufacture of the vessels namely, fire float. There is no provision for levying customs duty for the manufacture of goods within India.