9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under project import benefit
In this case, the appellant imported VSATs for communication purposes. The lower appellate authority decided against the appellant, stating that the VSATs cannot be considered auxiliary goods for project import benefit under CTH 9801. The appellant argued that the goods should be treated as auxiliary equipment based on a recommendation certification from the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers. The appellant also cited precedents, including the case of Krishak Bharati Co-operative Ltd. v. CC, Bombay, to support their claim. However, the lower appellate authority found the facts of the present case to be different, emphasizing that the VSATs were used for inventory control and communication between manufacturer, distributor, and marketing points. The authority held that the VSATs did not qualify as auxiliary equipment under project import benefit. The authority referenced the legal principle that a decision is an authority for what is decided and not what can be logically deduced from it, highlighting the importance of specific facts in determining the applicability of precedents. The relevant entry for project imports under CTH 9801 includes machinery, instruments, control gear, and auxiliary equipment required for the initial setting up or expansion of various projects. The lower appellate authority examined this entry and concluded that the VSAT equipments, used solely for communication purposes at different locations, did not fall within the scope of CTH 9801. The authority determined that the VSATs could not be classified as covered items under the project import benefit. Consequently, the appellate tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, stating that the appeal lacked merit and dismissing it accordingly.
|
