Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, New Delhi

2015 (8) TMI 1113 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Classification of goods - benefit of project import - Held that:- appellant had not produced the Release Advice from the Custom House where the project was registered and therefore the assessing officer had no basis to classify the impugned goods under CTH 98.01 and so assessed the goods on merit. The Commissioner (Appeals) is thus totally justified in holding that the assessment was correctly done. The judgement in the case of Power Build Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai (2003 (5) TMI 306 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the benefit of project import in respect of the said Bills of Entry. The judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Tullow India Operations Ltd. (2005 (10) TMI 502 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has clearly stated that “it depends on the facts of each case” and thus did not lay down any general principle/ratio. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. C/150/2010-CU(DB) - F. Order No. 52217/2015 - Dated:- 1-7-2015 - Mr. Justice G. Raghuram and Mr. R.K. Singh, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Tarun Gulati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imported for the IGI project as certified by the concerned Ministry were allowed to be classified under 98.01. In the present case the goods were imported at ICD, TKD. (ii) The appellant filed 47 Bills of Entry for assessment of goods under CTH 98.01. The assessing officer disallowed the assessment under CTH 98.01 on the ground that the Release Advice from the Custom House where the project is registered as per proviso to Regulation 5 of Project Import Regulations, 1986 has not been produced. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice and that non-issuance of Release Advice in spite of application therefor was illegal. (ii) The Commissioner (Appeals) should have directed the Revenue to issue the Release Advice and that Release Advice is only a procedural requirement as held by CESTAT in the case of Power Build Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2003 (156) ELT 905 (Tri.-Mum.) (iii) The impugned order in appeal had been issued without discussing the various grounds. (iv) It had received the requisite essentiality certificate for the go .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ions Ltd. - 2005 (189) ELT 401 (SC), to the effect that essentially certificate would also approve that the item should be treated as capital goods. 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, contended that the assessing officer had no basis or ground to assess goods under CTH 98.01 as Release Advice in terms of Regulation 5 of the Project Imports Regulations, 1986 was not produced. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is a fact that the appellant had not produced the Release Advice fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version