9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completion of operation. 3. The imports were made by three Bill of Entries, one Bill of Entry dated 24.01.2017 and two Bill of Entries of March 2017. The Learned Counsel pointed out that so far as, the Bill of Entry dated 24.01.2017 is concerned, no duty can be demanded, as the issue is covered by various decisions namely:- State of Hariyan V.Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd-2004 (178) ELT 13 (SC) Clough Engineering Ltd. V. Commissioner of Cus. (Import). Mumbai- 2006 (198) ELT 457 (Tri.-Mumbai) Commissionerv. Clough Engineering Ltd.-2006 (202) (202) ELT A59 (SC) Swiber Construction Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla-2015 (330) ELT 715 (Tri.-Ahmd) 3.1 As regards, the imports made by the appellant in March, 2017, the same are not covered by the aforesaid decision as the said notification No. 12/12- Customs was amended by the Notification No. 06/2017, Customs dated 02.02.2017 wherein, in the condition 40A appearing against relevant entry, following additional condition was introduced:- "(iii) in Condition No. 40A, After Clause (d) the following clause shall be inserted namely: "(e) Where the goods so imported are sought to be disposed of, the importer of the transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain specified conditions. As per Serial No. 216 of the Table annexed to the notification goods falling under Chapter 84 or any other chapter specified in List 12, required in connection with Petroleum operations undertaken under specified contracts are exempt subject to condition 31 which inter alia provides for production of certificate from a duly authorized officer of the Directorate General of Hydro Carbon in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Government of India that the imported goods are required for petroleum operations referred to in Clause (a) i.e. in connection with Petroleum operations to be undertaken under a contract with the Government, of India. 5. The entire dispute in this case revolves around the interpretation of the expression "required for petroleum operations". The stand of the Department is that since the seized goods were in excess of the quantity of pipes actually used in the Laxmi Field Project Phase I by the importers who had entered into a contract dated 29.6.2001 with M/s. Cairns Energy Pvt. Ltd. for execution of the above project by carrying out engineering, designing, procurement construction, fabrication and installation of two platform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) is just, proper and legal and does not require any interference at our hands. There is no word "used for manufacture" in the exemption notification. On plain reading of the notification, the exemption is available to the item and it is required for manufacture of goods falling under chapter heading 85.42, namely, Electronic integrated circuits and Micro-assemblies. There is no indication in the notification for production of any end-use certificate. If the item is required for manufacture of goods falling under chapter heading 85.42, then the benefit is required to be extended. In this regard, the assessee's contention is that the item being LSI/VLSI tester, it is eligible for the benefit of the concession as the said item is required for the manufacture of goods falling under chapter heading 85.42. The term used in the notification is "required for manufacture". The simple interpretation that has to be imported to these words are as to whether they are necessary for the purpose of manufacture of goods falling under chapter heading 85.42. It is not for us to include other meanings than to give a simple meaning of its utility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 85.42. In that view of the matter, the Commissioner's order granting benefit on the simple reading of the notification is justified and correct and there is no infirmity in the same. There is no merit in this appeal and it is rejected. 8. The above view recorded by ld. Member (Judicial), who disagreed with the order recorded by ld. Member (Technical) that the benefit of the notification was not available to the respondents, has been concurred with by third member, and by majority order, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the expression "for use" is on a higher footing than the expression "required for use, and in the absence of the expression "specifically used for manufacture", has extended the benefit of Notification No. 57/88 to LSI/VSLI tes. equipments falling under Chapter 85.42 and sold to customers other than manufacturers of goods falling under Customs Tariff Heading 85.42 and not actually used for manufacture of electronic Integrated Circuits and Micro assemblies falling under CTH 85.42. 9. In the light of the above decisions and in the light of the admitted position that the project was completed by the appellants which in turn c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourth year and subsequent years at the rate of 2 per cent., subject to the maximum of 70 per cent:" 7.1 Consequently, it is seen that notification expressly denied exemption to the left over goods which though imported for the specified purpose could not be used for the said purpose. However, in the said circumstances, the notification it prescribed specific rate of depreciation for the purposes of calculations of Customs Duty. The impugned order holds that the depreciation is available only up to the date of removal of the goods from offshore platform/MBPT. Whereas, the appellant seek depreciation up to the time when the goods were disposed of by them. We find that the Clause (e) prescribes the depreciation on a straight line method. 8. The impugned order relies on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Jagson International ltd. Vs. Commissioner reported in 2018 (362) ELT A244 (Tri.-Ahm.) to deny the benefit. A perusal of the facts in the case of Jagson International ltd shows that in the said case M/s. ONGC had awarded a letter of approval to M/s. Jagson International ltd for petroleum Operation/Exploration as Oil Gas Licensee to ONGC. M/s. Jagson International ltd was requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of India, to the effect that the said goods are no longer required for the petroleum operations or coal bed methane operations, and the depreciated value of the goods shall be equal to the original value of the goods at the time of import reduced by the percentage points calculated by straight line method as specified below for each quarter of a year or part thereof from the date of clearance of the goods namely :- (v) for each quarter in the first year at the rate of 4 per cent: (vi) for each quarter in the second year at the rate of 3 per cent; (vii) for each quarter in the third year at the rate of 2.5 per cent; and (viii) for each quarter in the fourth year and subsequent years at the rate of 2 per cent., subject to the maximum of 70 per cent:" It is seen that in the first line of Clause (e), it is clearly stated that the said Clause will be activated only when the imported goods are sought to be disposed of. The said Clause also provides that the depreciation will be "from the date of clearance of goods". The impugned order fails to take notice of such clear direction and denies the benefit of depreciation. It is seen that disposal of goods does not means re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
