Skip to content


J.M. Industries Vs. the Commissioner of Central - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Judge
AppellantJ.M. Industries
RespondentThe Commissioner of Central
Excerpt:
.....oil 63 kgs for 24 hours and other oil 5 kgs for 24 hours. on this basis, he found that the excess quantity as declared by the master of the vessel at the time of arrival of the vessel at along anchorage was more than the required quantity and the excess quantity was found stored in separate tanks. he therefore, rightly assessed the bunkers in their proper heading as per para 2 (d) of the cbe&c circular no. 37/96-cus dated 30/07/96. the contention of the appellants in the appeal before the tribunal that all the bunkers were consumed is therefore patently incorrect, in view of the clear finding of the adjudicating authority. since the authorities below have correctly assessed bunkers on merit in the light of the circular referred above, there is no ground for interference with.....
Judgment:
1. This is an appeal against that a portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has upheld the adjudication order confirming duty demand of Rs. 1,04,184/- on bunkers, on the ground that they were present on board the vessel and not found in the machinery, but stored in separate tanks.

2. The appellants were asked for decision on the basis of the written submission which we perused. We also heard Ld. DR and perused the other records. The adjudicating authority has recorded a clear finding that the average consumption of oil when the ship is in full run i.e. the ship is not idle, is Furnace Oil 7 MT per day, Diesel Oil 7.5 MT for 24 hours, Lub Oil 40 Kgs for 24 hours, Cylinder Oil 63 Kgs for 24 hours and other oil 5 Kgs for 24 hours. On this basis, he found that the excess quantity as declared by the Master of the Vessel at the time of arrival of the vessel at Along Anchorage was more than the required quantity and the excess quantity was found stored in separate tanks. He therefore, rightly assessed the bunkers in their proper heading as per para 2 (d) of the CBE&C Circular No. 37/96-Cus dated 30/07/96. The contention of the appellants in the appeal before the Tribunal that all the bunkers were consumed is therefore patently incorrect, in view of the clear finding of the adjudicating authority. Since the authorities below have correctly assessed bunkers on merit in the light of the circular referred above, there is no ground for interference with the impugned order, which we accordingly uphold. The appeal is thus rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //