2015 (7) TMI 94 - AT - Customs

Extension of installation period - import of capital goods for appellant s pollution control treatment plant - Notification No. 97/2004 dated 17.9.2004 - Held that - Notification in question does not restrict itself to the period for which extension can be granted for installation of the imported capital goods. The genuineness and bona fide of delay on the part of the assessee is required to be assessed from various circumstances available in a particular case. As already observed, the appellant is a Government of Kerala Undertaking and is primarily depending upon the funds to be provided by the Government. Further, the fact that this is a huge plant can be considered as one of the reasons resulting in delay in installation. The appellant has already given an undertaking that all the machineries would be installed by December 2015. Accordingly, we consider the request for extension of period upto December 2015 as genuine and bona fide and accept the same. The appellant would file quarterly reports with the concerned Customs and Central Excise officers indicating the machinery installed by them in the previous quarter and the officers would verify the appellant s claim regularly. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of time for installation of imported capital goods under EPCG Scheme.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Govt. of Kerala Undertaking, imported capital goods for a pollution control treatment plant under Notification No. 97/2004. The notification required installation within six months, with the possibility of extension on reasonable grounds. The appellant failed to complete installation within the stipulated time and applied for extension, which was denied by lower authorities, leading to the present appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the notification did not specify a maximum extension period, granting discretion to Customs and Central Excise officers. Referring to previous cases, the Tribunal emphasized that the installation period was a procedural condition, and extensions could be granted beyond the initial timeframe. The Tribunal highlighted that the genuine reasons for delay needed assessment, considering the circumstances of each case. The appellant's dependency on government funds and the project's scale were considered valid reasons for the delay. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's request for an extension until December 2015, with quarterly progress reports required. The Tribunal clarified that the December 2015 deadline was not absolute, allowing further extensions based on the evolving circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting an extension for the installation of capital goods until December 2015, subject to quarterly reporting and further extension possibilities based on the project's progress and genuine reasons for delay.