2019 (5) TMI 393 - AT - Customs

Project import - Finalization of contract - finalization of assessment - HELD THAT - The Appellant is required to file all the documents to complete the assessment initially made provisional - However, in the present case, from the records, it is found that the Appellant in October 1996 enclosed a report from M/s IPCL through their letter dt.10.10.1996 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) in response to the communication from Assistant Commissioner dt.23.09.1996. Neither the Revenue nor the Assessee thereafter pursued the matter to make the assessment final till 2010. During the intervening period, M/s IPCL, a Public Sector Undertaking, was taken over by M/s Reliance Industries Ltd and therefore, the relevant documents establishing the receipt and utilization of cables could not be procured by the Appellant from the said Company. Since the evidences are produced subsequent to the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the matter needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating authority to consider these evidences or any other evidences that could be procured and submitted during the course of de-novo proceeding to establish that the imported goods have been supplied and used in the project registered with the Department under Product Import Regulation, 1986 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against OIA No.927/ MCH/DC/Contract Cell/2012, dt.21.11.2012 - Failure to provide installation certificate - De-registration of contract - Finalization of assessment under Project Import Regulation, 1986 - Procurement of relevant documents - Remand to Adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appeal was made against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, regarding the de-registration of a contract under Project Import Regulation, 1986. The Appellants imported and supplied XLPE insulated copper conductor cables to a project registered with the Customs department. The dispute arose due to the failure to provide the installation certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise authority.

2. Submission by Appellant: The Appellant contended that they made sincere efforts to procure the installation certificate but faced challenges due to changes in the ownership of the recipient company. They submitted various documents to establish the supply and installation of the imported materials by approaching relevant authorities post the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant requested a remand to the Adjudicating authority for further assessment based on the additional evidence.

3. Revenue's Submission: The Revenue highlighted that despite provisional assessment in 1995, the Appellant failed to submit the necessary documents until 2010 when the Department requested finalization. However, the Revenue did not oppose the remand of the matter to the Adjudicating authority for further evaluation.

4. Adjudication: The Tribunal analyzed the Project Import Regulation, 1986, requiring submission of necessary documents for finalization of the contract within a specified period. The Tribunal observed that while the Appellant had provided some documents earlier, the assessment was not finalized by either party until 2010. The change in ownership of the recipient company further complicated the procurement of essential documents.

5. Decision: Considering the additional evidence submitted by the Appellant post the Commissioner's order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand. The matter was directed to be reconsidered by the Adjudicating authority to evaluate the new evidence and any further submissions that may arise during the proceedings to establish the supply and utilization of the imported goods in the registered project under the Project Import Regulation, 1986. All issues were kept open for further examination.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal complexities involved in the case, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further assessment based on the additional evidence provided by the Appellant.