Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (5) TMI 205 - AT - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Installation Location of Imported Pipelines
2. Interpretation of "Factory or Premises"
3. Compliance with EPCG Scheme and Notification No. 64/2008-Cus
4. Limitation Period under Section 28 of the Customs Act

Summary of Judgment:

1. Installation Location of Imported Pipelines:
The primary issue was whether the imported pipelines installed outside the Central Excise registered factories at Barbil and Jajpur violated the conditions of Notification No. 64/2008-Cus and Para 5.3.2 of the Handbook of Procedures of FTP. The Department alleged that the pipelines were not installed at the specified "premises" mentioned in the EPCG licenses, thus denying the benefit of the concessional rate of Customs duty.

2. Interpretation of "Factory or Premises":
The Appellant argued that the Barbil and Jajpur plants constituted an integrated manufacturing unit and that the pipeline connecting these two facilities should be considered within the "factory" itself for EPCG benefits. The Tribunal found that the term "premises" in the Notification is broad enough to include the entire stretch where the pipelines were installed. The pipelines were essential for the continuous manufacturing process, transporting slurry from Barbil to Jajpur, and the Appellant had obtained the right of way for the land on which the pipelines were installed.

3. Compliance with EPCG Scheme and Notification No. 64/2008-Cus:
The Tribunal noted that the DGFT had issued Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) after verifying that the Appellant met all conditions of the EPCG Scheme. The Customs Department had also cancelled the Bonds and bank guarantees, indicating compliance with the Notification. The Tribunal held that the Appellant fulfilled all conditions stipulated in Notification No. 64/2008-Cus, and the integrated facility's pipelines were considered within the "premises" for extending the benefit of the concessional duty.

4. Limitation Period under Section 28 of the Customs Act:
The Appellant contended that the demand raised in April 2017, almost 8-9 years after the import date, was beyond the extended limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal agreed, stating there was no suppression of information, and the extended period was not invocable. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had disclosed all relevant information to the Customs Authorities, including the installation locations outside the factory premises.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original (OIO) on merits and on the ground of limitation, allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant. The judgment concluded that the Appellant was eligible for the concessional rate of duty as specified in Notification No. 64/2008-Cus, and the pipelines were considered installed within the factory or premises of the Appellant.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates