9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rejection of re-registration of contract for concessional rate of duty under Project Import Regulations. 2. Denial of concessions under the Item in respect of spare-parts imported. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Tribunal raised two key issues. Firstly, whether the rejection of the appellants' prayer for re-registration of the contract to avail of a concessional rate of duty under Project Import Regulations was correct. Secondly, whether the denial of concessions under the Item concerning spare parts imported was justified. 2. The facts of the case revealed that the appellants were granted an import license for capital goods under Project Import, with a recommendation for a concessional rate of duty under Heading 84.66 of the CTA 1975. Subsequently, the appellants applied for de-registration of the contract, which was granted by the Customs authorities. However, when attempting to clear spare parts under a concessional rate of duty, the Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the re-registration request, stating that the main equipment had already been imported, rendering the request invalid. 3. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld the decision, emphasizing that re-registration of the contract was not permissible under the relevant tariff heading. Additionally, he ruled that the concessional rate of duty could not be granted for spare parts under the specific provisions of the tariff heading. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants appealed to the Tribunal. 4. During the appeal hearing, the appellants argued that they were entitled to project import concessions under Heading 84.66 and an exemption notification simultaneously, citing a previous Tribunal decision. They also contended that the de-registration was done based on Customs authorities' advice, which they later deemed incorrect. The appellants further challenged the less charge demands issued by Customs authorities and asserted their eligibility for concessional assessment on spare parts. 5. The respondent, represented by Shri H.L. Verma, defended the lower authorities' decisions strongly, opposing the appellants' claims for re-registration and concessional rate of duty on spare parts. 6. The Tribunal clarified that it was not required to rule on the less charge demands or the simultaneous availment of concessions under different provisions. It also noted the absence of evidence regarding Customs authorities advising the de-registration, emphasizing that the appellants had voluntarily opted for de-registration to benefit from other duty concessions. 7. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants' deliberate de-registration of the contract precluded them from seeking re-registration for spare parts concessions. As per the statutory provisions, the re-registration request was deemed inadmissible, and the appellants failed to provide evidence of Customs authorities' advice for de-registration. 8. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, dismissing it based on the appellants' failure to fulfill the contractual registration prerequisite for spare parts concessions under the relevant tariff heading. The denial of concessions by the lower authorities was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.
|
