9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details, are Finolex Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as FIL) had sought the permission of the authorities for fabrication of storage tanks for storing ethylene for utilizing the same in their plant in Ratnagiri and the tanks were to be erected close to jetty. FIL had given contract of fabrication of these tanks to L&T Ltd. who sought the import of raw materials under the Project Import Scheme. The said project was registered with the authorities and the nickel steel sheets were imported for fabrication of storage tanks. Bill of entry was provisionally assessed. Subsequently, on execution of the said project, L&T Ltd. filed various documents with the adjudicating authority for finalization of the assessment. The adjudicating authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by L&T Ltd. as being hit by limitation as the appeal was filed beyond the period of 90 days, and also dismissed the appeal of FIL on the ground that they have not utilised the purpose for which the nickel steel plates were imported i.e. substantial expansion of installed capacity. 3. Learned counsel appearing for both the appellants would take us through the issue in hand and the documents. It is his submission that the imports were made with an intention to use the storage tanks for the purpose of increasing the production and in fact the said storage tanks were designed, fabricated and erected for storing ethylene near the jetty, but due to subsequent developments, they could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit and the raw materials imported for fabrication of such storage tanks will also be eligible for the project import benefit de-horse the installed capacity. 3.1 As regards the appeal filed by L&T Ltd., it is his submission that the appeal has been dismissed by the first appellate authority on the ground of limitation. 4. Learned Commissioner (AR) submits that the entire appeal of FIL needs to be dismissed as there is no demands raised on FIL. It is his submission that in the entire case before the adjudicating authority, L&T Ltd. was the importer and duty was demanded from them only and not from FIL. It is his submission that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of L&T Ltd. as hit by limitation, which would mean that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord that L&T Ltd. filed the reconciliation statements with the authorities on completion of the said project and which on verification found that the imported goods were not used for the project which was registered, as the said tanks were leased out by FIL to BPCL. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised on L&T Ltd. 7. On perusal of the entire records, we find that L&T Ltd. had preferred an appeal against the confirmation of less charge demand before the first appellate authority beyond the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order-in-original by them. As per Section 128 of the Customs act, the first appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days, on expiry of 60 days time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
