TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act, 1962 (delayed clearance of goods from warehouse) - HELD THAT:- Bangalore Tribunal in the case of CREATIVE INDUSTRIES P. LTD. VERSUS CC. C. EX. (A-II), HYDERABAD [ 2008 (6) TMI 23 - CESTAT BANGALORE] , wherein it was held that non-production of installation certificate is only a procedural requirement and not a condition determining the eligibility of the impugned goods for the benefit of concessional rate of assessment. The Tribunal further noted that the said decision was affirmed by the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh as reported in CCE. C., HYDERABAD VERSUS CREATIVE INDUS. (RAJAHMUNDRY) P. LTD. [ 2012 (10) TMI 646 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] . The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the other Tribunal which also he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law: (i) Whether the tribunal was justified in holding that the production of installation certificate of the goods imported free of duty under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 is only directory and not mandatory? (ii) Whether the conclusion of the tribunal that the production of sale invoices for having sold the computerized PCB in-circuit Tester for test bench for Ticket Office Machines would tantamount to discharge of the obligation to produce the proof of installation. (iii) Whether the tribunal failed to appreciate that the failure to clear the validator imported vide Bill of Entry No.5668 dated 24.10.2009, the imported goods namely computerized PCB in-circuit Tester for test bench for Ticket Office Machines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered by the Tribunal in paragraphs 6 and 8. The finding rendered by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 is with regard to the compliance of the requirements in respect of a project import and whether the assessee had fulfilled his obligations. The original authority and the first appellate authority held that the installation certificate as required under Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 have not been produced, it goes without saying that the assessee has not installed the machinery and therefore not entitled for any benefits which would accrue to them. 5.The revenue would vehemently contend before us certain facts stating that there was difficulty in even serving notices on the assessee, there was change of address, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re were evidences by way of invoices raised in the name of the Northern Railway produced by the assessee before the Tribunal and as well as before this Court. 7.In our considered view, the Tribunal has taken a decision on appreciation of facts placed before it by way of documents and in this appeal filed under Section 130 of the Act, we are required to decide the substantial questions of law and not to re-appreciate the factual finding unless it is shown that the finding is utterly perverse. We are not inclined to classify the impugned finding as being utterly perverse. Therefore, no grounds have been made by the revenue to interfere with the said finding. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as no substantial questions of law arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not seriously contest this issue before the first appellate authority but when the matter came before the Tribunal, it appears that some argument was advanced and the Tribunal presumably noting section 28AA of the Act, held that the interest liability can arise only from 1995. 11.In our considered view, the Tribunal committed an error in making such an observation as it is never the case of the revenue that interest was demanded under section 28AA of the Act. Before us, the revenue would refer to section 61 of the Act. Such contention was never raised at any earlier point of time. Therefore, in our considered view the revenue cannot be aggrieved by observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the impugned order because demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not have been entertained and the goods would have been right away confiscated and other proceedings would have followed on that, per contra, the goods were allowed, bill of entry was allowed to be filed and the goods were examined and a double duty bond was executed and the goods were bonded. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the contentions raised by the assessee was wholly not tenable. Therefore, we find no grounds to interfere with the finding passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue. 14.Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
