9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant in relation to the duty demanded under Section 28 of the Customs Act. 2. Interpretation of procedural requirements under Regulation No. 7 for availing exemption from duty under Project Import Regulations 1986. Analysis: 1. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for a duty amount demanded by the original authority under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The appellate authority upheld the demand of duty, stating that the appellant had imported capital goods under a project import registration in 1992, availing exemption under Project Import Regulations 1986. The original authority demanded duty due to the non-production of necessary documents by the appellant under Regulation No. 7. Despite earlier remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the appellant to produce evidence, the original authority passed an adverse order, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal, after examining the case and considering the submissions, found that the appellant was eligible for assessment under Regulation No. 4, and there was no dispute regarding the registration of the relevant contract. The dispute centered on the procedural requirements under Regulation No. 7, which mandated the production of specific documents within a specified timeframe. 2. Under Regulation No. 7, the appellant was required to produce documents such as triplicate copies of bills of entry, attested invoices, installation certificates, and bank remittance certificates, among others, within three months from the date of goods clearance. The assessing authority insisted on original documents, some of which were unavailable with the appellant. The Tribunal considered the case law precedent cited by the appellant's Consultant, referencing the decision in Polyplex Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai, where it was held that if the substantive conditions were satisfied, the benefit of project import should be granted during finalization of provisional assessment. In light of the facts and the cited case law, the Tribunal inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, concluding that the procedural requirements under Regulation No. 7 were substantially met by the appellant. The order was made accordingly, providing relief to the appellant in this case.
|
