Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

J.M. Industries Vs. the Commissioner of Central

J.M. Industries vs The Commissioner of Central

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 03, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39259

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

J.M. Industries

Respondent

The Commissioner of Central

Excerpt

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.

Full 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial