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

2016 (11) TMI 757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isions to condone such delay beyond 90 days. Consequently, the appeal of L&T Ltd. before the Tribunal needs to be rejected and we do so. Benefit of concessional rate of duty - utilisation of imported articles for the purpose of substantial expansion of installed capacity - Held that: - FIL was never an aggrieved party before the authorities as the project was registered with the authorities by L&T Ltd. under the Project Regulations and L&T Ltd. gave an undertaking to file all the reconciliation of material consequent to execution of the project. At no stage of the entire proceedings, FIL was a party to the proceedings nor any demands were raised against them, nor any explanation was called from them in order to contest the issue on merit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on execution of the said project, L T Ltd. filed various documents with the adjudicating authority for finalization of the assessment. The adjudicating authority caused plant site verification of the usage of the raw materials and components imported under Project Import. It was reported by the central excise authorities from Ratnagiri that the capital goods manufactured out of raw materials and components imported under Project Import have not been utilized by FIL; leased out both the storage tanks to BPCL for storage of LPG. In view of the discrepancy, a demand notice was issued to the importer, L T Ltd., directing them to show cause why the project import concessional rate of duty be not denied to all the consignments cleared under proj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction 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 not utilize the tanks for storage of ethylene and leased out the said tanks to BPCL for storing of LPG, without parting with the ownership; they had imported nickel steel plates which are required for storing of materials i.e. ethylene which has to be stored at -104 degree centigrade and the said nickel sheets are costlier than any other steel sheets. It is his further submission that actual use is not necessary to qualify for the concessional rate of duty under the project import, which mandates for import of items required for substantial expansion of existing unit; the expressi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m 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 all the connected appeals do not survive. It is his submission that the appeal filed by FIL is infructuous though it was urged that FIL was a party to original order-in-original, which is incorrect as the less charge demand on finalization of project import bills of entry were raised on L T Ltd. It is his submission that by virtue of the tanks being fabricated in the factory premises of FIL, they do not become a party to the dispute as there is no demand raised against them and bond as well as the bank guarantee were executed by L T Ltd. and the detention notice for non-payment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y 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 granted for filing the appeal. In the case in hand, the appeal which has been rejected by the first appellate authority of L T Ltd., is correct as the appeal has been filed beyond 90 days and there are no provisions to condone such delay beyond 90 days. Consequently, the appeal of L T Ltd. before the Tribunal needs to be rejected and we do so. 8. As regards the appeal filed by FIL, we find that they are contesting the issue on merits before us. In our considered view, FIL was never an aggrieved party before the authorities as the project was registered with the authorities .....

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