9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as assessed provisionally and effective rate of duty prescribed under Notification 132/85 was levied. The appellant thereafter submitted necessary documents for finalization of provisional assessment and provisional registration of contract. In terms of CBEC instructions contained in letter No.512/8/89-Cus-VI dated 14.6.1991, a request was made to Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur, to conduct plant site verification for the imported goods on 16.10.2003. The central excise formation at Nagpur submitted a report to the customs that the said goods were not found installed in the factory and therefore verification could not be completed. The Deputy Commissioner also informed the customs that the importer had sold the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the year 1997-98 due to economic unviability, the production at their factory was closed and later, almost 18 months after the stoppage of production, the said machines and other associated equipment were disposed of. The learned counsel argued that it is not disputed that the appellant had actually received and installed the plant and produced goods for period exceeding two years. It is not disputed that the plant thereafter was idle for considerable period of time. It was argued that there is no provision under Notification 132/85 or under chapter heading 98.01 or under the Project Import Regulations that prohibits sale of the machinery imported under the Project Import Regulations after the same has been installed and used. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put the equipment to use for more than two years. It is only when the plant became unviable and was lying idle for more than 18 months that the appellant disposed of the plant. We find that in the absence of any restriction of such sale, the benefit of assessment under chapter heading 98.01 cannot be denied. The learned AR has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Bijlee Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai 2014 (314) ELT 74. In the said case, the imported goods were not used at all for the purpose for which the same were imported. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the imported goods were used for the intended purpose for a period of over two years and thus the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Bijlee Ltd. (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rojects like Konkan Railway Project, Road Development Projects of the National Highway Authority of India, etc. specified under Heading 98.01 of CTA." We agree with this observation of the Tribunal. 14. We do not find any substance in this submission. In that case this Court did not consider the vehicles imported to be an item of auxiliary equipment required for setting up of an initial unit on the ground that it was used only in shifting of the transformers which would not constitute an integral part of the power project. The vehicles imported were required for transportation of the transformers from railway yards to the erection sites and had no relation to power generation or power project. After transporting the specified number of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
