Commissioner of Customs vs Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co.

This Appeal by the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Mumbai dated 5th September, 2013, setting aside an Order-in-Original and allowing the Appeal of the assessee Respondent before us. The assessee applied for refund of the duty and to the tune of Rs. 31,17,091/- on Bunkers corresponding to the quantity available during export of the vessel.

The refund claim was considered by the Assistant Commissioner, Dapoli Customs Division, and he rejected it by the Order-in-Original dated 10th August, 2005. He held that claim for refund filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, is in respect of excess duty paid on Bunkers of the vessel at the time of import. Since the vessel has been imported for a dredging work in connection with Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility being set up by M/s. Dabhol Power Company (DPC), and such a dredger is distinct from a cargo carrying vessel, he is not entitled to claim the refund of excess duty. The importer was required to take duty on the entire quantity of Bunkers at the time of import. We are not concerned with that part of the Order-in-Original, and the reasons assigned in paragraph 5. It is clear that parties understood that the only controversy was whether a claim for refund could lie in respect of excess duty paid on the Bunkers of the vessel which has been imported for dredging work and styled as a "Dredger". The Tribunal has found that this vessel has been put on par with Cargo Vessels and other categories which have been noted in the Board Circular No. 58/97, dated 6th November, 1997, and the clarification issued by Kandla Custom House dated 6th June, 2006, thus, Cargo Vessels, Tanker Ships and Dredger Ships are treated at par. If the refund claim is in respect of Bunkers on the imported vessels namely a dredger, then that could have been entertained and allowed is the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. That is relied upon by considering the facts and circumstances and peculiar to the Respondent assessee. They were not disputed. Secondly, the Tribunal relied upon the Board Circular and the clarification given by the Kandla Custom House to allow the claim. When such is the approach of the Tribunal, its order cannot be termed as perverse, or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, this Appeal fails and it is dismissed.