Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (3) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ional assessment. Thus in accordance with Regulation 7 : Finalisation of contract - The importer shall within three months from the date of clearance or within such extended period, submit a statement indicating the details of the goods imported. Thus Once the imported equipment was installed the benefit could not be denied for the failure to fulfil the conditions prescribed under Regulation 7 of PIR as decided by so many cases of Tribunal like Polyplex Corporation Limited v. C.C.E (2007 (2) TMI 14 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI) and many more. - C/236/2009 - 55/2011 - Dated:- 12-8-2010 - Shri M.V. Ravindran and P. Karthikeyan, JJ. Shri G. Venkatesh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M. Vivekanandan, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 16-4-2007 i.e., after a lapse of nearly two years from the import of the second and last consignment on 1-6-2005. As per Regulation 7 of PIR, the importer has to furnish all documents within three months from the date of clearance of last import or within such extended period allowed by the proper officer, failing which the concessional rate already granted will be denied and the goods will be reassessed on merit rate of duty and the resultant short collection of duty will be recovered along with interest. After due processes of law, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Kakinada finalized assessment of the two Bills of Entry filed by the importer for clearance of goods imported under PIR at merit rate. The provisional assessment applyin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nded to serve . 3.1 As regards the specific ground for denial of the project import benefit owing to failure to fulfil Regulation 7 of PIR, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions of the Tribunal and invited our attention to the pertinent observations of the Tribunal which are reproduced below. (i) Polyplex Corporation Limited v. C.C.E. - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.-Delhi). 6. It is very clear from the above ruling that it is erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions, irrespective of the purpose they were intended to serve. In the present case, the purpose of the statute was to grant a beneficial rate of duty to goods imported for setting up a new project. The appellant s was such a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncessional rate of assessment. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief . (iii) Final Order No. A/76A/WZB/2006-CI dated 10-1-2006 in the case of Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2. The demand has been confirmed against the appellants herein who had registered their contract in terms of Project Import under Heading 98.01 for Akrimota Thermal Power Station, on the ground that (they) did not submit a reconciliation statement within three months from the date of clearing last import as per clause 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986. The appellants produced before us a copy of the reconciliation statement which they have filed before .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted the grounds raised in the appeal. 5. The learned SDR relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Textiles Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.). In the said judgment, the Apex Court sustained denial of assessment of goods imported under Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff by the appellant therein. The appellant had paid full duty and claimed refund. The authorities rejected the claim for refund of the differential duty paid by the assessee. The Tribunal sustained the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) holding that the appellant had failed to satisfy the condition that the import should take place against contractors registered with the custom house. 6. We have carefully examine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates