Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
Issues:
Eligibility of Notification 110/95 Cus. to imports of Aluminium skylight panels/glass panels for a Hotel project. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved the interpretation of Notification 110/95 Cus. dated 5-6-95 regarding the eligibility of imports of Aluminium skylight panels/glass panels for a Hotel project. The issue revolved around whether the imported goods would fall under the definition of capital goods as per the notification. The definition of capital goods in the notification includes plant, machinery, equipment, and accessories required for various purposes, such as manufacturing, production, and rendering services. The appellants relied on previous decisions, including Commissioner of Bombay v. Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. and Enjay Hotels P. Ltd., to support their case. Notably, the decision in the case of Enjay Hotels P. Ltd. discussed the scope of coverage of the term 'capital goods' and 'plant' under Notification 110/95. It was held that goods like marble slabs imported for use in a building could be considered as 'plant'. Based on this precedent, the appellants argued for a full waiver of pre-deposit requirements and a stay on recovery pending the regular hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the appellants had presented a strong case for the waiver of pre-deposit requirements and stay of recovery. The stay application was disposed of accordingly, with the matter scheduled for regular hearing on 30-5-2005. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the specific nature and intended use of the imported goods in determining their classification as capital goods under Notification 110/95 Cus. The decision underscored the significance of past rulings and interpretations in similar cases to guide the assessment of eligibility for benefits under the notification. The Tribunal's ruling provided clarity on the application of the notification to imports for specific projects like the Hotel project in question, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of the provisions and definitions outlined in such notifications for accurate classification and assessment of imported goods.
|