9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under "Project Import" for replacement parts of imported machinery. 2. Interpretation of the requirements under heading 84.66(ii) for concessional rate of duty. 3. Applicability of certificates issued by DGTD for project imports. 4. Comparison with relevant case laws such as Ballarpur Industries Limited, Mangalore Chemicals, and Reliance Industries Limited. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved the appellants seeking the benefit of concessional rate of duty under "Project Import" for replacement parts of two diesel power generator sets imported for a cement plant project. The Collector (Appeals) had denied the benefit based on the argument that replacement parts cannot be entitled to concessional rate of duty. The appellants contended that the replacement parts were essential for post-importation requirements and were certified by DGTD for duty concession under project import. Issue 2: The Tribunal analyzed the requirements under heading 84.66(ii) for concessional rate of duty, which mandate that spare parts must be part of a registered contract under sub-heading (1) of heading 84.66. Since there was no contract registered for the two diesel power generator sets for which replacement parts were imported, the appellants were deemed ineligible for concessional rate of duty under chapter heading 84.66(ii). Issue 3: The appellants argued that the certificates issued by DGTD recommending concessional rate of duty for the two diesel power generator sets and replacement parts should have been binding on the Customs Authorities. However, the Tribunal held that the absence of a registered contract for the imported machinery negated the eligibility for concessional rate of duty, irrespective of the DGTD's recommendations. Issue 4: The Tribunal distinguished the present case from relevant case laws cited by the appellants. In the case of Ballarpur Industries Limited, the contract for project import was initially registered but later de-registered by Customs Authorities, unlike the current scenario where no such registration existed. The case law of Mangalore Chemicals lacked a specific finding on the registration of the contract for concessional rate of duty, further weakening the appellants' argument. Similarly, the case of Reliance Industries Limited did not align with the facts of the present case. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal and affirming that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under heading 84.66(ii) for the replacement parts. The decision was based on the absence of a registered contract for the imported machinery, as required by the relevant provisions.
|
