9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against denial of registration under Customs Tariff Act, entitlement for project import benefit, and exemption under Notification 21/2002-Cus. Analysis: The appellant sought registration under Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff Act for a Power Generation Plant setup. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) denied registration, stating the project did not qualify for project import benefit or exemption under Notification 21/2002-Cus due to being meant for captive consumption. The appellant argued the plant was not captive as electricity was supplied to a sister concern off-site, citing a Tribunal decision. They contended the plant comprised various equipment, not a single composite machine as claimed by the authority, making them eligible for the exemption. The Revenue argued that the plant was indeed captive based on permissions granted by the State Government, restricting power use to captive consumption only. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, they differentiated between a Power Plant and a Power Project based on capacity, asserting the appellant's plant did not qualify as a project under the relevant entry. The Revenue maintained that the plant's capacity of one MW, expandable to 4.5 MW, fell short of the threshold for captive power plants under the entry, thus not eligible for the benefit. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and relevant provisions of Serial No. 399, which outlined different categories for customs duty concessions. Considering the plant's capacity, permissions, and the distinction between Power Plant and Power Project as per legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's plant did not meet the criteria for a Power Project under the relevant entry. Even if considered a project, the captive consumption aspect precluded eligibility for the benefit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the plant's characteristics and intended usage, as pronounced in the open court on 23-2-2005.
|
