9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1113 - AT - CustomsClassification of goods - benefit of project import - Held that - appellant had not produced the Release Advice from the Custom House where the project was registered and therefore the assessing officer had no basis to classify the impugned goods under CTH 98.01 and so assessed the goods on merit. The Commissioner (Appeals) is thus totally justified in holding that the assessment was correctly done. The judgement in the case of Power Build Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai (2003 (5) TMI 306 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) is cited by the appellant to press the point that issuance of Release Advice is only a procedural requirement. We find that even in that judgement the Hon ble CESTAT has clearly held that Release Advice is indication to the Customs House about availability of the entitlement to import in a particular license issued by the Custom House where licence is registered. Thus in the absence of any such indication, the assessing officer at the Customs House where goods were imported had no basis to grant the benefit of project import in respect of the said Bills of Entry. The judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Tullow India Operations Ltd. (2005 (10) TMI 502 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has clearly stated that it depends on the facts of each case and thus did not lay down any general principle/ratio. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Chapter Heading 98.01, Non-production of Release Advice as per Project Imports Regulations, 1986, Appeal against order-in-appeal disallowing classification, Entitlement to Release Advice, Benefit of project import, Delay in filing appeals for Bills of Entry, Essentiality certificate for imported goods, Justification of assessment under CTH 98.01. Analysis: The appeal in this case was filed against an order-in-appeal that disallowed the classification of imported goods under Chapter Heading 98.01. The appellant, registered under Project Imports Regulations, 1986, imported goods for a project but failed to produce the Release Advice from the Custom House where the project was registered. The assessing officer disallowed the assessment under CTH 98.01 due to the absence of the Release Advice. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the appellant failed to provide the necessary documentation for the classification. The appellant argued that they were entitled to the Release Advice and that its non-issuance was illegal, citing previous judgments to support their claim that the Release Advice was a procedural requirement. Regarding the essentiality certificate for the imported goods, the appellant claimed to have received it from the Ministry of Civil Aviation, asserting that customs should classify the goods under CTH 98.01 based on this certificate. The appellant also contested the delay in filing appeals for certain Bills of Entry, requesting condonation of the delay. However, the Tribunal found that the assessing officer had no basis to classify the goods under CTH 98.01 without the Release Advice, as confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner's letters declining to issue the advice. The Tribunal emphasized that the issuance of Release Advice is crucial for indicating entitlement to import under a specific license, as per the Project Imports Regulations. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal, stating that the assessing officer correctly assessed the goods based on the absence of the necessary documentation. The Tribunal clarified that the issuance of Release Advice is not merely a procedural requirement but serves as a significant indication to the Customs House about the entitlement to import under a specific license. The judgments cited by the appellant did not alter the fact that without the required documentation, the benefit of project import could not be granted for the imported goods.
|
