Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Customs vs Shaw Wallace And Co. Ltd. on 21 June, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990(29)ECC273, 1991ECR542(TRI.-DELHI), 1990(50)ELT143(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The appellants have sought for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal No. CAL. CUS 1709/89 dated 16-10-1989 passed by Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta.
2. The respondent submitted a bill of entry that among other things contained furnace oil of 1449.36 Kilo litre, which was found on board a vessel during her reversion from foreign run to coastal run. Furnace oil was assessed to duty under Tariff Heading 2710.50 @ Rs 127.10 Per Kilo Litre. The respondent disputed the assessment of rate of duty of furnace oil. According to them, the rate of duty should be at rupees 5.20 P per Kilo litre as per Notification No. 157/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 as amended by Notification No. 115/79-Cus., dated 31-5-1979 read with amendment Notification No. 295/87-Cus., dated 13-8-1987. The appellants filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,76,677.00 as excess paid duty by them. The refund claim received was rejected on the ground that the amendment Notification No. 295/87-Cus., dated 13-8-1987 came into effect only on 13-8-1987. The respondent went in appeal before the Collector of Customs who allowed their appeal. The Revenue being aggrieved by the said order of Collector Calcutta have preferred this appeal.
3. Notification No. 157/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 before amendment by Notfn. No. 295/87-Cus., dated 13-8-1987 provided concessional rate of duty @ Rs 5.20 per Kilo litre to furnace oil "supplied ex-bond to coastal vessel as bunker." The Amendment Notfn. No. 295/87-Cus., dated 13-8-1987 also extended the concessional rate of duty to furnace oil "retained on board the vessel at the time of its reversion from foreign run to coastal run and consumed in its coastal run". The Revenue has submitted that the meaning and implications of both the notifications and its relevant amendment are different and since the amendment of Notfn. No. 295/87-Cus., dt. 13-8-1987 is not with retrospective effect, the benefit of the concessional rate of duty by the amended notification cannot be extended to the party in the subject case which is related to prior 13-8-1987.
4. Shri S. Chakraborti, learned JDR submitted that the benefit of the amendment Notification can not be available to the party and therefore the Collector of Customs in the impugned order had committed an error by holding that the party was entitled for benefit of amended notification.
5. The respondent has sought for an order on merits.
6. We heard the learned JDR, went through the records and the impugned order. After being satisfied with the order passed by the Collr., we dismissed the appeal.
7. The Collector has held that the objective and spirit of the mother Notification No. 157/76 is to extend relief of duty on furnace oil which is consumed only during coastal run and not consumed for home consumption. He has further held that there cannot be two principles for levy of duty on furnace oil consumed during coastal run of a vessel, whether the said oil is supplied from ashore or already imported arid retained on board for consumption during coastal run. The Collector has further held that what was only implicit in the mother Notification 157/76 was made explicit by the amending No. 295/87. So the amendment by Notification No. 295/87 did not include any fresh point or condition in the mother Notification 157/76 but was an elaboration of the spirit and objective of the mother notification. We are in total agreement with the findings given by the Collector in the impugned order. We have gone through the notifications. The Notification No. 157/76 exempted furnace oil falling within Chapter 27 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and supplied ex-bond to coastal vessels as bunker, from so much of the additional duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act as is in excess of Rs. 5.20 per kilo litre at 15 degrees of centigrade thermometer. This notification was amended by Notification No, 295/87. In our view, this amending notification is clarificatory in nature. In this notification, the words "or retained on board the vessel at the time of its reversion from foreign run to coastal run and consumed during its coastal run" were to be inserted after the word "bunker" appearing in Notification No. 157/76. We agree with the logic behind the Collector's order in deeming this later notification as being clarificatory in nature. If so, inclusion of the above words shall be deemed to be from the date of the original Notification No. 157/76. The contention of the Revenue that the inclusion of these words would be effective only from the date of Notification No. 295/87-Cus. is not a correct reading. Notification No. 295/87 is a clarificatory notification to remove ambiguity in the earlier notification. Therefore there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.