9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as sought. Held that:- The observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is apt and is also in tune with the CBEC Circular No. 659 - the water purification system itself could ideally be considered as a unit as explained in Regulation 3(d). The water purification system itself could ideally be considered as a unit as explained in Regulation 3(d) - The Circular No. 659 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/00358/2011 - Final Order No. 42513/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, the Deputy Commissioner vide Order in Original dt. 08.10.2009 rejected the application filed by the assessee for registration of the aforesaid contract. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Chennai. The learned Commissioner vide Order-in-Appeal dt. 23.08.2011 set aside the order of the lower authority thereby allowing the appeal directing granting of Registration as sought. The findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are that there were different entries in the Customs Tariff Heading 9801 for industrial plant and others while CTH 9801 00 11 is meant for industrial plant project, 9801 00 12, 9801 00 13, 9801 00 14 and 9801 00 15 are for irrigational plant p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the project and, therefore, the import, as in the case, being a single machine, is not sufficient to be considered as an initial setup. 3. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms. Cynduja Crishnan supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). It was further contended by her that the drinking water supply project would even cover purification plant which was wrongly classified as an industrial plant. It was her further case that the plant in question could never be an industrial plant, which fact stands supported by this authority for drinking water supply project, i.e. the District Collector and not the Ministry concerned. It was further contended that the Deputy Commissioner did not appreciate as to how the plant imported in CKD/SKD c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
