9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gulation and the items were imported under Bill of Entry dated 14-11-2002 for a total value of USD 37,25,587. The goods were cleared on project rate of duty @5% + 16%. The appellants later imported certain spares and consumables. During the finalization of the Project, it was seen that all the goods covered by the project registration were already imported. The Comptroller and Auditor General raised objection on the application of project rate of duty for the impugned import of spares. Therefore the Revenue proceeded against the appellants and the lower authority in his Order-in-Original dated 27-10-2006 con firmed the demand for the short levy of amount of Rs. 11,82,437/- with interest based on the findings that the benefit of project impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the maintenance of the project. In this case, the appellant relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C., Bangalore v. Chamundeshwari Studio & Lab. (P) Ltd., reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 264 (T) wherein, in Para 9, it was held that spares imported for maintenance within l0% of the value of the project would be covered by Heading 98.01. They also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. v. C.C., Bombay reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 276 wherein, in Para 14, it was held that the import of spares within 10% of the value of the machinery is allowed for the maintenance: of the same. The appellate authority has not given any finding on the case laws cited by the appellants. He has simply stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir down cost. They have also not appreciated the point that the spares imported are within 10% of the value of the project. Further lower authority has given a finding that the spares imported for maintenance are not entitled for the concessional assessment. This is also incorrect as he has not read the Heading 98.01 which itself covers the imported spares which are essential for the maintenance. Our attention was also invited to the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Zuari Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 648 (S.C.) that the heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff is not a general of residuary entry. It needs to be liberally interpreted as it deals with industrialization and it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
