9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 757 - AT - CustomsProject import - limitation bar - Held that - L&T Ltd. had preferred an appeal against the confirmation of less charge demand before the first appellate authority beyond the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order-in-original by them. As per Section 128 of the Customs act, the first appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days, on expiry of 60 days time granted for filing the appeal. In the case in hand, the appeal which has been rejected by the first appellate authority of L&T Ltd., is correct as the appeal has been filed beyond 90 days and there are no provisions to condone such delay beyond 90 days. Consequently, the appeal of L&T Ltd. before the Tribunal needs to be rejected and we do so. Benefit of concessional rate of duty - utilisation of imported articles for the purpose of substantial expansion of installed capacity - Held that - FIL was never an aggrieved party before the authorities as the project was registered with the authorities by L&T Ltd. under the Project Regulations and L&T Ltd. gave an undertaking to file all the reconciliation of material consequent to execution of the project. At no stage of the entire proceedings, FIL was a party to the proceedings nor any demands were raised against them, nor any explanation was called from them in order to contest the issue on merits. By virtue of being the beneficiary of the project which was executed by L&T Ltd., FIL cannot walk into the shoes of L&T Ltd. as an appellant and contest the issue on merits. In our view, the appeal filed by FIL is liable to be dismissed summarily and we do so. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against order-in-appeal No. 595 & 596/2004-MCH dated 7.10.2004. Analysis: 1. Facts and Background: The appeals were filed by Finolex Industries Ltd. and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. regarding the fabrication of storage tanks for storing ethylene. The tanks were to be erected close to a jetty, with Larsen & Toubro importing raw materials under the Project Import Scheme. Central excise authorities reported that the tanks were leased out to BPCL instead of being used by Finolex Industries Ltd. for the intended purpose. 2. Adjudication and Appeals: The adjudicating authority held that Larsen & Toubro failed to prove that the imported goods were used for substantial expansion, denying them the concessional rate of duty. Both Larsen & Toubro and Finolex Industries Ltd. appealed. The first appellate authority dismissed Larsen & Toubro's appeal due to a time limitation issue and dismissed Finolex Industries Ltd.'s appeal for not utilizing the imported goods for substantial expansion. 3. Appellant's Arguments: The counsel for the appellants argued that the intention to expand the PVC plant was evident, even though the tanks were leased out. They contended that actual use is not necessary for the concessional rate of duty under project import regulations. They also highlighted the substantial expansion achieved by the appellants and the necessity of the storage tanks for manufacturing activities. 4. Commissioner's Submission: The Commissioner argued that there were no demands raised on Finolex Industries Ltd. and that the appeal was infructuous. He emphasized that the demands were raised on Larsen & Toubro and that Finolex Industries Ltd. was not a party to the dispute. On merits, he stated that the imported goods were not required for substantial expansion. 5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal observed that Larsen & Toubro's appeal was correctly dismissed due to a time limitation issue. Regarding Finolex Industries Ltd., the Tribunal found that they were not an aggrieved party as the project was registered by Larsen & Toubro, and no demands were raised against Finolex Industries Ltd. Therefore, the appeal by Finolex Industries Ltd. was summarily dismissed. 6. Conclusion: Both appeals were rejected by the Tribunal, with the decision pronounced on 19.10.2016. Larsen & Toubro's appeal was rejected due to a time limitation issue, while Finolex Industries Ltd.'s appeal was dismissed as they were not considered an aggrieved party in the matter.
|
