CEGAT has disposed of this appeal by the impugned order.
The bank guarantee was duly encashed on 3.4.1992.
On 12.3.2003, this Court allowed the appeal holding This appeal is against a judgment dated 23.6.1998 passed by the Customs, Excise And Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai.
On 2.4.1992, the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise sent a letter to the appellant companymunicating the decision of the Collector, as aforesaid.
This declaration was number accepted by the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise.
On 25.3.1992, the Collector of Customs, Rajkot, directed the Assistant Collector, Bhavnagar to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant.
CEGAT held that the appeal was in fact against the Collectors order.
After protesting against the said illegal action of the Department in encashing the bank guarantee, the appellant preferred an appeal against the Superintendents letter dated 2.4.1992 and the Collectors order dated 25.3.1992 before CEGAT.
The respondent filed an appeal directly before CEGAT.
Facts briefly stated are that the respondent filed a Bill of Entry in respect of ship M.V. Olinda imported by them for purposes of breaking.
The respondent, thus, approached the Assistant Collector.
On 3.3.1992, the appellant cleared the vessel on payment of customs duty on the basis of 7009 metric tons and executed a bank guarantee for Rs.19,90,275/ being the difference in customs duty on 1561 metric tons.
It declared in the said Bill of Entry that the Light Displacement Tonnage of the vessel was 7009 metric tons.
On 23.6.1998, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector dated 25.3.1992.
It appears that between the Assistant Collector and the Collector there was some internal companyrespondence on this aspect.
The Collector companyveyed this decision to the Assistant Collector by his letter dated 25.3.1992.
Of companyrse the order dated 2nd April, 1992 is based on the decision of the Collector.
In the year 2000, the Department preferred an appeal before this Court.
However, the order remains that of the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise.
After this judgment, on 23.5.2003, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals against the order passed by the Superintendent, Customs dated 2.4.1992.
Also the order by which respondent is aggrieved is the order passed by the Superintendent.
The Collector took a policy decision on how LDT was to be calculated.
An appeal against that order has to be filed before the Commissioner Appeals under Section 128.
By virtue of Section 129 A, CEGAT has numberjurisdiction to entertain such an appeal.
The respondent showed the light displacement tonnage LDT as 7009 metric tons.
The question was how LDT was to be calculated.
Pursuant thereto the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise passed an order dated 2nd April, 1992 in respect of vessel M.V. Olinda.
On 19.2.1992, the appellant was informed by the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise Alang that the Light Displacement Tonnage of the ship is actually 8570 tons and that customs duty was to be levied on this tonnage.
The appellant imported a vessel, namely, M.V. Olinda, for the purpose of breaking the same, and filed a Bill of Entry when the vessel was imported on 7.2.1992.
F. Nariman, J. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows.
The appellant is engaged in ship breaking activity at Alang Ship Breaking Yard.
CEGAT negatived a companytention that the appeal was number maintainable before them on the basis that the Superintendents order is numberhing more than a companymunication of the order passed by the Collector Appeals .
