9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The said re-imports were having damaged parts in it. The adjudicating authority observed that the impugned goods were neither personal nor private property and concluded that the Notification applicable was 94/96 and not 174/66 as claimed. 2. It was further observed that damaged goods were restricted for re-import as per para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. On the basis of scrap value of alloy steel the goods were revalued. Since the old and used parts were restricted as per para 2.17 of Exim policy, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and gave an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs on the appellant. 3. Aggrieved from the same, an appeal was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt (other than captive power generation plant). However, the notification envisages the exemption only for such goods, which are for, 'renovation or modernisation' and while, the rotor, etc. can be termed as 'goods for renovation or modernization' the unusable scrap generated during the process of re-conditioning/repairs cannot be termed as 'goods for renovation or modernization'. This unusable scrap can in no way be used for the renovation or modernization. Similarly, conciliation No. 2 in Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-96 envisages re-import of goods after repairs wherein the value after repairs were made up of the fair cost of repairs carried out including cost of materials used in repairs (whether such costs are actually incur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the scrap goods re-imported were entitled for full exemption in terms of Sl. No. 3 to table to the Notification No. 94/96. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR submits that the imports are not entitled exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 and further submitted that the scrap goods were covered by Sl. No. 2 to the Table to the Notification No. 94/96. 7. Heard both sides. 8. In the light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of GMR Energy Ltd. (supra) we are convinced that the re-imported rotors are entitled to be assessed in terms of Sl. No. 236 of the Table to Notification No. 21/02-Cus. We order accordingly. As regards the scrap generated in repair of rotors abroad and under re-import, they are not covered by Sl. No. 3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
