9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 737 - AT - CustomsProject Import - Concessional rate of duty - Regulation 7 of Project Import Regulations, 1986 - Held that - The installation of goods is of prime importance as the goods should be used for the intended project. In the present case the same has not been disputed by the revenue. Further the reconciliation statement gives all the details of the documents/ Bill of Entry even though the same was not submitted - The reconciliation statement, installation certificate towards installation of goods which is of prime importance and the certificate of Chartered Accountant certifying the remittance of consideration of imported goods are ample proof of compliance with the Project import Regulations. Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CCE. & C., HYDERABAD VERSUS CREATIVE INDUS. (RAJAHMUNDRY) P. LTD. 2012 (10) TMI 646 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT has granted the benefit of concessional rate of duty in somewhat similar circumstances. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Non-compliance with Project Import Regulations, 1986 leading to a demand for differential duty. 2. Submission of required documents by the Appellant. 3. Dispute over the sufficiency of documents submitted. 4. Interpretation of Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986. 5. Applicability of Chartered Engineer Certificate and Chartered Accountant Certificate in lieu of missing documents. 6. Judicial precedents supporting the Appellant's position. Analysis: 1. The case involved the Appellant importing goods for a project under Project Import Regulations, 1986, at a concessional rate of duty. Non-submission of required documents led to a demand for differential duty amounting to ?15,94,339. 2. The Appellant submitted a reconciliation statement and an indemnity bond but failed to provide copies of invoices, bank remittance certificate, installation certificate, and bills of entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 3. The Appellant argued that they submitted the necessary documents, which were not properly placed by the customs officer. However, the Commissioner found the Appellant's failure to produce acknowledgment copies of submitted documents as a crucial lapse. 4. Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 mandates the submission of detailed goods information and necessary documents. The Appellant's submission of a reconciliation statement and Chartered Engineer Certificate was deemed sufficient for compliance. 5. The Appellant's counsel argued that the Chartered Engineer Certificate and Chartered Accountant Certificate should suffice in the absence of certain documents due to labor unrest. The Tribunal accepted these certificates as proof of compliance with the regulations. 6. Citing precedents like CCU (Imports) Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that similar circumstances had granted concessional duty rates. The Appellant's compliance with key requirements and submission of essential certificates supported their entitlement to the concessional rate of duty. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the duty demand and granting them the benefit of the concessional rate of duty based on the satisfactory submission of required documents and certificates.
|
