9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether they were used for any other purpose than construction of roads? - Whether the imported goods were sold within a period of five years from the date of importation? - Whether the imported goods were otherwise disposed of? HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the imported goods were used for construction of roads from March 2004 to October 2004. Though the goods were shifted to DMRC site there is no statement on record from any official of DMRC that the goods were utilize for any other purpose than construction of roads. Had the goods been used for any other purpose than construction of roads then it was possible for Revenue to lay their hands on such evidence. From the case records, such evidence is not forth coming. Therefore, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared through Bill of Entry No. 371784 dated 10.07.2003 by claiming exemption at Serial No. 230 of Notification No. 21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 wherein the effective rate of duty was NIL and the availment of notification benefit was with condition specified at Serial No. 40 at the end of the said notification. The condition at Serial No. 40 can be summarized that the imported goods should be imported by a person who has been awarded the contracts for construction of roads in India either by Ministry of Surface Transport or by National Highway Authority of India or by Public Works Department of State Government. As per the condition of the said notification the importer was required to use the imported goods exclusively for the construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal authority that except the statement of Shri Mittal there is no evidence brought on record to prove that the rigs in question were used for DMRC Project and also stated that they were awarded contracts for construction of roads by the NHAI and they have used the rigs in question for the construction of roads and that they have not sold or otherwise dispose the said rigs. They further stated that taking loans against rigs for payment of installments to M/s Citicorp Finance Limited does not amount to sale or disposal of rigs and therefore, the demand is not sustainable. The show cause notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original wherein the learned original authority has held that through the statement the noticee has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot. He has further submitted that the conditions of the notification are that the goods should be used for the purpose of construction of roads. In respect of that he has submitted that a certificate is available at page no. 53 of the appeal paper book certifying that the subject goods were used for piling for foundation of the R.O.B. from March 2004 to October 2004. In respect of other condition that the goods should not be sold within a period of five years, he has stated that the Revenue has not brought forward any document establishing that the goods had changed the title from the importer to any other person. He has submitted that due to the financial constraints, the possession of goods were given to some other person for availing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be used only for the project for which it was initially imported and such interpretation was resulting in idling of machinery. Therefore, the CBEC had clarified that it is permissible to relocate or redeploy the machinery imported under the exemption to another road construction project and further stated that liberal interpretation of condition of notification was expected by CBEC. 4. Learned AR has submitted that the appellant company had violated the condition of the notification inasmuch as that Shri Rohit Mittal in his statement dated 14.11.2007 had stated that he had to deploy the piling rigs to the DMRC site at Pusa Road, New Delhi, and Commissioned the same there and that it became very difficult to Shri Mittal to pay the insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed that the goods were sold by the appellants. The only issue remaining is whether the goods were otherwise disposed of by the appellants. From the case records, it appears that though at the time of seizure the goods were in custody of other person than the importer, however Revenue has not established that the goods were disposed off to other person forever and importer did not have any control over the goods. Further, the control was with the appellant that is why the installments were being paid for the finance raised by the appellant. Above discussion establishes that the importer company has not violated the specified conditions of exemption notification and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 7. In view of the foreg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
