Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sesa Goa Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... on 15 September, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. C/130/11-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. GOA/CUS/GSK/80/2010 dated 20.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Panaji, Goa) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Sesa Goa Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa Respondent Appearance: Shri Mukesh Laddha, Associate GM (Taxation), for appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 15.9.2015 Date of Decision: 15.9.2015 ORDER NO Per: P.K. Jain
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is having a vessel MV Orissa which is used for transshipping iron ore from barges to mother vessel and vice versa. During transshipment activity, for safe and efficient operations, the vessel requires stability and for this purpose, approximately 30,000 WMT of iron ore is loaded in the vessel as a ballast cargo. Since the vessel is a foreign going vessel, they have filed a shipping bill for the said 30,000 WMT of iron ore in the name of the master of the vessel and paid export duty on the said iron ore, though the said iron ore was not meant to be exported but was meant to be used as ballast cargo. After using the vessels during the normal period i.e. from October to May-June, the vessel is brought to the port. Then additional iron ore of approximately 32,000 WMT was loaded and new shipping bill for export of 62,000 WMT was filed and the vessel along with the said iron ore went for foreign voyage where they unloaded the said iron ore. For the earlier 30,000 WMT iron ore, they submitted for cancellation of the shipping bill and also refund of export duty paid on the iron ore at the original stage.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they were having this problem after the export duty on iron ore was introduced. It was further submitted that from 2013 onwards, a different procedure has been prescribed by the Custom House vide F.No.S/14-21/09 I&E dated 2.5.2013 wherein now they are executing a bond supported by a bank guarantee of 20% and they are not required to file the shipping bill and thereafter get it cancelled. They also submitted that the refund claims in the present case is for the initial year and thereafter now the Goa Custom House has permitted refund under the similar circumstances vide order No.90/2015/DC(A) dated 5.3.2015, order No.208/2015/AC/Refund-Exp. dated 20.7.2015 and similar other orders. Learned counsel also submitted that they are able to get evidence that the said vessel carrying 30,000 WMT has not left the harbour limits and, therefore, there is no question of exporting the said 30,000 WMT. It was further submitted that since now the procedure is streamlined and also appreciated by the Custom official therein, the matter is already examined and covered by the subsequent decision of the Custom House.
3. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. In our view, there was no reason for the Custom House to insist filing of the shipping bill in the name of the master of the vessel and pay the export duty at the initial stage itself when the goods were not meant for export. In any case, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that for the subsequent years in similar circumstances, the Custom House has granted the refund, we are setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and we are remanding the matter to the original authority to examine the documents and claim filed by the appellant similar to what has been done for the subsequent year and pass appropriate order. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case.
5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) tvu 1 4