9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 313 - AT - CustomsBenefit of project import - N/N. 14/2004-Cus and 3/2004-CE - respondent claimed classification of the resins to be registered under Project Import under Customs Tariff Heading No. 9801, on the ground that these resins were components/integral requirement of water demineralization of plant - Adjudicating authority rejected the contentions of respondent herein and denied the benefit of project import - Held that - the technical literature produced before the first appellate authority is not challenged by the Revenue in any way. Further, it is noticed that first appellate authority has followed the ratio of the case laws as decided by the Tribunal. In view of the foregoing the impugned order, in our view is correct and legal and does not require any interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Classification of resins under Project Import scheme 2. Eligibility for benefit of project imports Analysis: The appeal was filed by Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs denying the benefit of project imports to resins imported for installation of a water treatment plant. The respondent claimed that the resins were integral components for water demineralization. The first appellate authority set aside the original order and allowed the benefit of project imports to the resins. The Revenue contended that resins should be classified as consumables and not eligible for project imports. However, the consultant for the respondent supported the order. The first appellate authority considered technical literature showing the role of ion-exchange resins in water softening process and concluded that they were not consumables but integral parts of the water treatment plant. The authority also cited a similar case where project import benefit was granted for the use of chemicals in an electrolysis process. The appellate tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, noting that the detailed findings were not challenged by the Revenue and that the decision was in line with established case laws. Therefore, the appeal was rejected.
|
