TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 in “Port Development Project” Held that: - Notification No.42/96-Cus is issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-item (6) of Heading 98.01, the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1985, the Central Government has notified 19 projects input eligible under Project Import assessment under Chapter heading 98.01 and at Sl.No16, “Port Development Projects” are indicated. We find by letter dated 02/08/1996, the office of the Secretary of Ports & Fisheries Department, Government of Gujarat has specifically stated that they have accepted the proposal of the appellant for erecting of storage of LPG (import) facility at Porbunder Port of the Gujarat Maritime Board and by letter dated 01/02/97 clearly indicated to the Asst. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts are eligible to the benefit of Project Import Regulations in respect of the project registered by them. The impugned orders de-registering the project imports and demanding differential duty are unsustainable and liable to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-importer. - C/1404 & 1405/05 - A/93717-93718/16/CB, M/93719-93720/16/CB - Dated:- 8-11-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Prakash Shah, Advocate for appellant Shri.MK Sarangi, Jt. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER 1. These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.362 363/2005 /MCH/DC/CC/05 dated 06/09/2005 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, storage and distribution of LPG and the facility is not available to any other Port user. The letter dated 31/07/2004, the project authority has written to the lower authority to consider the same as Port Development Project and extend the custom duty concession to the appellants is incorrect. As per the lower authority the appellants are not eligible to benefit of Project Import and the contract has been de-registered. Appellant has been directed to pay ₹ 74,59,572/- and Appellant No.2 has been directed to pay ₹ 49,36,245/- on account of finalisation of assessment on merit. Appellant No.1 2 have filed two different appeals against the same order of the lower authority. 4. The first appellate authority also agreed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants and was not available to all port users is also incorrect as subsequently, the adjudicating authority i.e., Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar, by order-in-original No.05-06/Commr/2012 dated 31/07/2012 in appellant s own case held that the appellant is extending usage of storage tanks of LPG to others also; in fact it is on record that the appellant had permitted other oil companies to use the LPG Tanks; the findings of the learned adjudicating authority that storage facilities are not covered by Project Import Regulation is erroneous and has effect of rendering number of projects notified under sub-item (6) of Heading 98.01 of the notification No.42/96-Cus dated 23/07/96, nugatory and meaning less; sub-item (6) of He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks at Porbunder, Gujarat claiming the benefit of notification No.42/96-Cus dated 23/07/96, Sl.No.16 in Port Development Project . 9. We find from the records that Notification No.42/96-Cus is issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-item (6) of Heading 98.01, the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1985, the Central Government has notified 19 projects input eligible under Project Import assessment under Chapter heading 98.01 and at Sl.No16, Port Development Projects are indicated. We find by letter dated 02/08/1996, the office of the Secretary of Ports Fisheries Department, Government of Gujarat has specifically stated that they have accepted the proposal of the appellant for erecting of storage of LPG (import) faci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No.42/96-Cus issued by the Government of India under Heading 98.01. We also find strong force on the contentions raised by the learned Counsel that the only reason of denying the benefit of Project Import Regulations was that these storage tank was for their own use, is also erroneous, as we find that in the order-in-original dated 03/07/2002, the appellant s own case, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has held that the applicant has been extending the benefit of these very same storage facilities to other oil marketing companies and amounts collected from such oil marketing companies are to be considered for valuation of the goods imported. 10. In view of the foregoing factual matrix, we have no hesitation to hold that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
