9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1-3-2002 (as amended) in respect of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002 (as amended) in respect of Additional Customs Duty (CVD). The Customs Notification prescribed effective rates of 5% and 16% for BCD and CVD respectively, while the Central Excise Notification prescribed nil rate of duty for non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in List 9 . The said List 9, at Sl. No. 16, mentioned agricultural, forestry and agro-industrial, industrial, municipal and urban waste conversion device producing energy . The goods were cleared in terms of the Customs notification. However, a dispute subsisted between the importer and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... project import under CTA Heading 98.01 became complete with the import under consideration, a few parts of the project import having been made earlier. The Customs notification specifically covered the entire project import classified under CTA Heading 98.01, whereas the Central Excise notification granted exemption from payment of duty of excise on any non-conventional energy device/system falling within any Chapter of the CETA Schedule. It is also submitted that the item imported by the respondents was not shown, by them, to constitute, by itself, a non-conventional energy device or system. In the circumstances, the benefit of the Excise notification cannot be claimed by the assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refers to the Apex Court s decision in Tamilnadu Newsprint Papers (supra), in support of her argument that, where exemption is available to an item imported under project import scheme, exemption from payment of customs duty or additional duty of customs could be claimed only under the relevant Customs notification. It is submitted that, in the event of any conflict between the Apex Court s decisions in the cases of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. (supra) and Tamilnadu Newsprint Papers (supra), the latter being the later one would prevail. 4. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that the steam turbine per se is not capable of generating energy. The claim of the assessee under the Excise notification i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 6/2002, we do not think that the respondents can claim the benefit of that notification on the strength of the Apex Court s judgment in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. (supra), inasmuch as the Customs notification in that case contained a specific provision enabling the importer to claim under any other notification. Such is not the case here. The respondents have not shown a similar provision under Notification No. 21/2002. It appears to us, where it is the intent of the legislative authority to give liberty to an importer to claim under any exemption notification of their choice, such intent would be expressed explicitly by the authority. 6. In the present case, the assessee has paid duty on the goods correctly in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
