9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due to delay on the side of customs authorities. The Tribunal held that the goods in question are entitled to the benefit of concessional assessment as under project import. The appellant having made an application for the registration of the contract prior to import of goods and sponsorship letter having been issued, the appellant is eligible for the exemption of duty as per the Project Import Regulations - the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate - For the Appellant Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) - For the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant namely M/S. RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 23/08/2010 requested the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Project Import), Visakhapatnam Customs for registration of project under Project Import Regulations 1986. They obtained acknowledgement from the department for having received the application for registration of the project. Meanwhile, they filed bill of entry dated 16/09/2010, in Chennai Customs House for the clearance of certain goods fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exemption was denied on the ground that the contract is yet to be registered at Visakhapatnam Custom House. Later the contract was registered on 6/12/2010 and the appellant was granted provisional mega power status under the mega power policy by the Ministry of Power, Govt. of India. 3.3. The appellant had filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai against the assessment of bill of entry dated 16/09/2010 without extending the benefit of the project import. The Commissioner (Appeals), also refused to extend the benefit for the reason that the goods were cleared before the said contract was registered. 3.4. The Ld. Counsel submitted that it is a settled law that the benefit of project imports cannot be denied on the ground that the goods were imported before registration of the contract. The issue is squaredly covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Flance Proof (Gears) Ltd. Vs. CC, Bombay reported in 1998 (104) ELT 652 Tribunal. 3.5. Though the above decision was brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals), the same has been distinguished in the order by stating that the issue involved in the said judgement was rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. 4. The Ld. AR Shri Harindra Singh Pal supported the findings in the impugned order. It is submitted that the contract was registered only on 6.12.2010 and the goods were imported on 16/9/2010 much before the registration of the contract. The appellant therefore cannot claim the benefit of project import. As the project is yet to be registered the authorities below have correctly denied the request for reassessment. The Ld. AR made that the appeal may be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue to be considered is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of duty exemption under project import on the goods cleared by them before the registration of the contract. The very same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Flance Proof (Gears) Ltd. (Supra). In the said case, the appellant therein had imported the goods before the registration of the contract and the Tribunal held that the clearance of the goods before registration of the contract does not debar the appellant from availing the benefit of Project Import regulations, 1986. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for considering the claim of the appellant. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit. The activities to be carried on by the imported equipment are complex process somewhat akin to the activity of developing of colour films, printing, enlarging and processing of photo films as in the case of Das Colour Lab. and Saraswathi Stores. 10 . Following the ratio of the above decisions, we hold that the goods in question are entitled to the benefit of concessional assessment as Project Import under Heading 84.66(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We set aside to the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. 7. During the hearing the Bench raised a query as to the date of issue of letter by the sponsoring Authority and the date of receipt of the same by the Customs department. The clarification was required as it was seen from records that certain machinery and equipment of the project import goods had arrived at Chennai Port before the completion of formalities for registration of the project under the Project Import Regulations, 1986. The Ld. Counsel for appellant furnished the letter of sponsoring authority dated 25.08.2010 issued by Secretary, Government of Chattisgarh. This letter was directly dispatched to Additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
