9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nking water as an 'Initial Setup'. The Revenue was of the view that the proposed import was only a "filter" for purification of water, which was not meant for initial setting up of a "unit" or for the substantial expansion of the existing unit as per the Tariff Entry. The Revenue was of the further view that the proposed import being a single/composite machine for the purpose of purification of water, could not be classified as a "project" under Customs Tariff Heading 9801. On being put on notice in the above lines, the assessee filed a detailed reply explaining the functional details of the goods proposed to be imported. The assessee also relied on the Board's Circular T.R.U. No. 659/50/2002-Cx. dt. 06.09.2002 to the effect that a water tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for setting up or expansion of a unit. Further, it is the case of the Revenue that as per Regulation 3(a)(ii) of the Project Import Regulation, 1986, a single machinery or composite machinery will not constitute a unit or project and, therefore, the proposed import being a single/composite of machines for the purposes of purification of water, cannot be classified as a project under Customs Tariff Heading 9801. It is his further contention that where a machine consists of individual components, whether separate or interconnected, intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the headings in Chapter 84 or 85, then, the whole falls to be classified under the heading appropriate to that function. As regards th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rival submissions and we have also gone through the documentary evidences furnished before us. We find that the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is apt and is also in tune with the CBEC Circular No. 659 (supra). We find that the water purification system itself could ideally be considered as a unit as explained in Regulation 3(d). Further, we also find that the Circular No. 659 (supra) also supports the contentions of the assessee by which the water treatment projects would get exempted. The assessee having satisfied the conditions of the said Circular, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly extended the benefit of the Circular to the assessee. We, therefore, fully endorse the reasoning/finding of the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
