9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of record placed before us, operators have never completed contract and agreements were not rescinded. Consequently, the DMRC remains the owner of the buses in question, therefore, on that ground the benefit of exemption notification cannot be to the appellant. It is admitted that these bus chassis purchased by DMRC from M/s.Tata are used as feeder bus service to carry passengers from various routes of metro and vice versa are integral part of the Delhi MRTS project and DMRC is the owner of the buses, therefore, DMRC has rightly issued certificate in terms of N/N. 6/2006-CE dt.1.3.2006 and M/s.Tata is entitled to avail exemption notification and have rightly cleared chassis in question without payment of duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/1093-1094/2010-Ex (DB), E/1282/2010-Ex (DB) - A/70437-70439/2019-EX[DB] - Dated:- 28-12-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri P.K. Sahu, B.L. Narasimhan Ayush Agarwal, Advocates Present for the Respondent: Dr. Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellants ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi-2000 (124) ELT 1175 (SC) (iii) State of Madras vs. Radio Electricals Ltd.-1966 018 STC 0222. 4. It is his submission that bus chassis cleared by the appellant qualify as machinery under Sl.No.90 of the notification. To support this, he placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bharat Sales Corporation vs. CC, Calcuta-1987 (32) ELT 778 (Tri.) Therefore, he submits that the impugned orders to be set aside. 5. On behalf of the appellant M/s. DMRC and Mr.Satish Kumar, Director, Ld.Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant has not issued any false declaration to M/s.Tata and all the condition specified in the Notification No.6/2006-CE dt.1.3.2006 are satisfied with respect to buses supplied to DMRC by M/s.Tata. When Metro Link Service is an integral part of the MRTS project, the authorities below are not correct in holding that the buses used for such service are not falling within the description of equipment including machinery and rolling stock for MRTS project. He also relied upon the dictionary meaning of equipment and further relied on Bharat Sales Corporation. He also relied on the decision of Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The sole reason to deny the benefit of exemption notification is the agreement between DMRC and its operators. As per agreement after five years the operator shall become the owner of the bus. In fact, on the basis of record placed before us, operators have never completed contract and agreements were not rescinded. Consequently, the DMRC remains the owner of the buses in question, therefore, on that ground the benefit of exemption notification cannot be to the appellant. 10. Further another issue raised by the Revenue is that the chassis in question are not inventory or equipment or machinery or rolling stock. Therefore, the benefit of exemption notification is not available as per Sl.No.90 of the notification. We find that the issue whether the vehicle is a machinery or not came before this Tribunal in the case of Bharat Sales Corporation (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- 8. Now, turning to the Chapter 88, which is in Section XVII itself, the statutory note defines aeroplane as flying machines which are heavier than air though this Chapter is outside Section XVI. On the same logic, there seems to be no reason why motor vehicles also should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied on the Boards letter dated 14.09.2004 addressed to the DMRC enclosing two lists of items, for which exemption was sought by the DMRC. The Original Authority referred to the proceedings of the Empowered Committed on Delhi MRTS Project. The Original Authority, after examining in detail, the background of DMRCs claim with the Department of Revenue recorded that bus cannot be even by implication considered as equipment It was also recorded that if the intention is to include the bus for exemption, the same could have found place in the original list of items submitted by the DMRC for consideration before the issue of the exemption notification. The buses procured by DMRC are for Metro Link Bus Service, for which buses will be handed over to the private operators on operate and transfer basis, on recovery of the value of the buses. This shows that neither the buses are used by DMRC nor ultimately owned by them. The Original Authority recorded that it is an admitted fact that the exemption under notification was extended to DMRC on their request after deliberation in the Empowered Committee on Delhi MRTS Project and after jointly examined by the Department of Revenue as well as by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not debar the respondent from availing the facility of project import. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted, then resultant effect as put by the Tribunal would be: no equipment can be imported for projects 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 transformers to the site of sub-station the utility of the vehicles would be over at the end of such transport and thereafter the vehicles could certainly be used for other purposes of the assessee. That the vehicles, which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
