9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Project Import under Tariff Heading 84.66. 2. Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. 3. Interpretation of Tariff Heading 84.66 regarding imported components and raw materials. 4. Verification of facts and evidence presented before the authorities. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved the denial of the benefit of Project Import under Tariff Heading 84.66 to the respondents who imported equipment, machinery, components, and raw materials for manufacturing end-products. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs initially denied the benefit on the grounds that the industrial plant had already commenced production before the import of certain equipment. The respondents appealed this decision before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. 2. In their appeal, the respondents explained that they had only partially implemented the project, with trial production started for some varieties of hose assemblies. They highlighted that they had not yet produced high-pressure hose assemblies, which required imported components, including testing machinery. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the initial setting up of the project would be complete with the import of raw materials and capital goods as per the Import Licenses issued to them. 3. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) judgment, arguing that the imported component parts of the end-product did not fall under Tariff Heading 84.66 as they were not for the manufacture of the items specified. The Tribunal noted the distinction between different clauses under the Tariff Heading and observed that if the imported components were necessary for the testing machinery, as claimed by the respondents, they could be considered permissible under the Tariff Heading, especially since the import was authorized by licenses. 4. The Revenue also raised concerns about the verification of facts presented by the respondents, suggesting that the matter should be remanded for further verification. However, the Tribunal found that the issue was too old for verification and that there was no rebuttal to the respondents' specific plea regarding the completion of the project. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the evidence provided by the Director of Industries was not adequately rebutted by the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision in favor of the respondents regarding the benefit of Project Import under Tariff Heading 84.66 for the imported components and raw materials necessary for the completion of the industrial project.
|
