9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orts Regulation, 1986 (PIR, 1986). The Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded the contract for lift irrigation project to M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., Hyderabad in the year 2005, who in turn sub-contracted the same to the respondent and the respondent have furnished a self-certificate HSS/Nettempad/St-I/AM dated 9.11.2006 to that effect and in order to execute the order, they have to import raw material/components for an approximate value of Rs. 12.82 crores. They submitted an essentially certificate issued by the Sponsoring Authority viz. the District Collector, Mahbubnagar as required under Notification No. 14/2004 dated 8.1.2004. They have also furnished a certificate of the year, 2006 from the Sponsoring Authority certifying that the equipments/goods proposed to be imported by them are required for implementing the irrigation project which encourages providing irrigation for agriculture lands and recommended for grant for duty concession under "project for agriculture and Industrial use" eligible for zero duty benefit as per Customs Tariff 9801 in accordance with notification No. 14/2004 dated 8.1.2004. It has been informed that during the course of adjudication before the adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 14/2004-Cus dated 08.01.2004. She also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the submission that exemption notification should be strictly interpreted: a) Novopan India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad reported in 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC) b) Liberty Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1995 (75) ELT 13 (SC) c) Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2011 (269) ELT 0289 (SC) d) Star Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Raigad reported in 2015 (324) ELT 659 (SC) She also submitted that the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs; 2007 (210) ELT 648 (SC) is not applicable on the facts of this case. 5. The Notification No. 14/2004-Cus., dated 8.1.2004 granted exemption from payment of CVD on 'water supply project' falling under Tariff Heading 9801 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as well as exemption from payment of basic customs duty leviable thereon. An "explanation" to the notification defined 'Water Supply Project' thus: "Water Supply Project includes a plant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pratibha Industries Ltd. (supra), which was relied upon by the Revue as well as by the adjudicating authority, only the pipes were imported by the party therein, which were meant for use in existing water distribution improvement scheme and not in water treatment plant unit and hence it was held that the same were not eligible to benefit under Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 r/w Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Therefore in our view the facts of M/s. Pratibha Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) were different and the said decision cannot be applied on the facts of the present case. 7. In a similar matter involving identical facts in Appeal No. C/964 & 965/2007 titled as Commr. Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.; this Tribunal vide Order No. A/86528-86529/2018 dated 25.5.2018 dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue. In that matter also, while rejecting the claim of the respondent therein, the department relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Pratibha Industries Ltd. case (supra) and upheld the order of the first appellate authority. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted as under:- "......Thus in the entire proj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in a power plant is imported as a part of Fertiliser Plant than the entire project would be classified as Fertiliser plant. In other word if a power plant is imported along with the fertiliser plant as part of common project then it would be classified as fertiliser project. Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows "9. Firstly, on the facts we find that the assessee had given to the Sponsoring Ministry its entire Project Report. In that report they had indicated that for the expansion of the fertilizer project they needed an extra item of capital goods, namely, 6MW Captive Power Plant. In their application, the assessee had made it clear that the fertilizer project was dependant on continuous flow of electricity, which could be provided by such Captive Power Plant. Therefore, it was not open to the Revenue to reject the assessee's case for nil rate of duty on the said item, particularly when the certificate says so. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Tullow India Operations Ltd. (supra), this Court held that essentiality certificate must be treated as a proof of fulfilment of the eligibility conditions by the importer for obtaining the benefit of the exemption notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate given by the Sponsoring Ministry has treated Captive Power Plant, in this case, as "capital goods" along with 13 other items. The assessee has also treated the Captive Power Plant as one of the capital goods required for the expansion of the fertilizer project. In the above circumstances, all the items in the list annexed to the certificate have been certified and recommended by the Sponsoring Ministry as the entire capital goods required for the substantial expansion of the fertilizer project. Therefore, in our view, the assessee is right in its contention that, in this case, 6MW Captive Power Plant is one of the items out of 14 items constituting capital goods required for the substantial expansion of the fertilizer project, and, therefore, it fell under Serial No. 226(i) as goods required for the fertilizer project entitled to the benefit of nil rate of duty. 11. Before concluding, we may point out that, on behalf of the Department, a large number of authorities were cited on 16 Appeal No. C/964 & 965/07 interpretation of entries in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is not necessary to examine those authorities on interpretation. Suffice it to state that, Heading 98.01 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
