9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 984 - AT - CustomsProject import - denial of the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dt.1.3.2002 - import of steam turbine gearbox and spares - If while availing the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dt.1.3.2002, the appellants could simultaneously availed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002 for the purpose of CVD? - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. 2004 (6) TMI 128 - CESTAT, BANGALORE where it was held that the exemption cannot be extended to turbine which converts heat energy into rotational energy (kinetic energy). Therefore, we are not convinced with the appellants plea that the turbine is eligible for nil rate of duty under Sl. No. 251 of Notification No. 6/2000, read with Sl. No. 16 of list of the said notification or under Notification 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002 read with Sl. No. 16 of List 9 - the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002 cannot be extended to the appellants for the purpose of calculation of CVD. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Availment of Notification No. 6/2002-CE for CVD along with Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. 2. Availability of benefits under Notification No. 6/2002-CE to the appellants. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellants contested the denial of benefits under Notification No. 6/2002-CE for import of steam turbine and/or electricity generator under Project Imports. The main contention was whether they could simultaneously avail the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and Notification No. 6/2002-CE for CVD. The appellants argued that the Circular of CBEC allowed simultaneous availment of similar notifications, citing Circular No. 41/2013-Cus. They emphasized that both notifications prescribed different rates of duty and should be applicable together. The Ld. Counsel further differentiated the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. regarding domestic turbine manufacturers, stating it was not directly applicable to imported goods intended for energy conversion from specified wastes. Issue 2: Regarding the availability of benefits under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, the Ld. AR contended that the turbine and generator were not devices converting specified wastes into energy, as waste conversion occurred only in the boiler. The AR relied on the decision of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. to support this argument. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions and upheld the decision, stating that the exemption under the notification was specific to devices utilizing agricultural, industrial, or municipal waste for energy conversion, which did not apply to turbines generating electrical power. The Apex Court also supported this view, dismissing appeals against the decision. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE could not be extended to the appellants for CVD calculation, rendering the first issue irrelevant and leading to the rejection of the appeals. In summary, the Tribunal upheld the denial of benefits under Notification No. 6/2002-CE for the import of steam turbines and electricity generators, emphasizing the specific requirements for exemption under the notification and the distinction between energy conversion devices and turbines. The judgment highlighted the applicability of Circulars and previous case law to support the decisions made, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeals.
|
