9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions were made in respect of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus which provided similar exemption as in case of 12/2012- Cus. The aforementioned decision is equally applicable to the facts of the case in respect of Notification No. 12/12- Customs as it stood prior to 02 February, 2017. In view of the above, the demand in respect of imports made vide Bill of Entry dated 24 January, 2017 is set aside. The facts in the instant case are that the appellant had imported certain goods, as certified by DGSC and had put most of the goods in use for the stated purpose. A part of the goods were leftovers. It is found that the facts in the instant case are significantly different from the facts in the case of M/S JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., OIL NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS C.C. -JAMNAGAR (PREV.) [ 2018 (9) TMI 196 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where the importer had failed to fulfil the necessary conditions of place by ONGC. In view of the above, the reliance on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Jagson International ltd, in the impugned order is not correct. After introduction of Clause (e) in Condition 40A by Notification No. 06/2017 dated 02 February 2017, the duty became payable on the leftove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12/12- Customs was amended by the Notification No. 06/2017, Customs dated 02.02.2017 wherein, in the condition 40A appearing against relevant entry, following additional condition was introduced:- (iii) in Condition No. 40A, After Clause (d) the following clause shall be inserted namely: (e) Where the goods so imported are sought to be disposed of, the importer of the transferee, as the case may be, may pay the duty of customs which would have ben payable but for the exemption contained herein, on the depreciated value of such goods subject to the condition that the importer of the transferee, as the case may be, produces before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the port of import, a certificate from a duly authorized officer of the directorate General of Hydor Carbons in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, to the effect that the said goods are no longer required for the petroleum operations or coal bed methane operations, and the depreciated value of the goods shall be equal to the original value of the goods at the time of import reduced by the percentage points calcula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the seized goods were in excess of the quantity of pipes actually used in the Laxmi Field Project Phase I by the importers who had entered into a contract dated 29.6.2001 with M/s. Cairns Energy Pvt. Ltd. for execution of the above project by carrying out engineering, designing, procurement construction, fabrication and installation of two platforms, pipelines and onshore gas processing plant etc., they were not required for the project and hence the condition in the notification had been violated by them. On the other hand, the importers contend that the goods were required for the project as certified by the Directorate General of Hydro Carbon who is the authority prescribed under the Notification for issue of certificate of requirement, and that there is no stipulation in condition 31 that imported goods have to be actually used in the said project; and therefore sale of seamless pipes is not contrary to the condition of the Notifications. 6. The submission of the importers that there is no end-use condition in the notification has force, in the light of the case law cited before us. In the case of State of Haryana v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. 2004 (178) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.), the Ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The term used in the notification is required for manufacture . The simple interpretation that has to be imported to these words are as to whether they are necessary for the purpose of manufacture of goods falling under chapter heading 85.42. It is not for us to include other meanings than to give a simple meaning of its utility in the manufacture of goods falling under chapter heading 85.42. The importation of the term used in the manufacture of goods is not proper and to hold that it is required to go into the goods to be manufactured by the assessee himself or by the person who are using it. So long as it is shown by the expert opinion, as has been shown in the present case, that it is required for use for testing of LSI/VLSI circuit micro assemblies and printed circuit board, the benefit has to be extended. In the present case, M/s. Electronic Corporation of India Ltd., a Govt. of India Enterprise has certified that the item is for testing of the said LSI/VLSI etc. In view of absence of any end-use condition in the notification, the benefit cannot be denied. It cannot also be included that the goods are required and sold for the manufacture of items falling under chapter head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rers of goods falling under Customs Tariff Heading 85.42 and not actually used for manufacture of electronic Integrated Circuits and Micro assemblies falling under CTH 85.42. 9. In the light of the above decisions and in the light of the admitted position that the project was completed by the appellants which in turn confirms that the 400 MM dia Seamless C.S. Pipes were intended for use in the project we hold that the appellants are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 and hence confiscation duty demand and penalty are not sustainable, and accordingly set aside the same. 6.1 The said decision was approved by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Clough Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Mumbai as reported in 2006 (202) ELT A59 (S.C). The aforementioned decisions were made in respect of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus which provided similar exemption as in case of 12/2012- Cus. The aforementioned decision is equally applicable to the facts of the case in respect of Notification No. 12/12- Customs as it stood prior to 02 February, 2017. In view of the above, the demand in respect of imports made vide Bill of Entry dated 24 January, 2017 is set aside. 7. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deny the benefit. A perusal of the facts in the case of Jagson International ltd shows that in the said case M/s. ONGC had awarded a letter of approval to M/s. Jagson International ltd for petroleum Operation/Exploration as Oil Gas Licensee to ONGC. M/s. Jagson International ltd was required mobilizes the rig Deepsea Treasure within 180 days to commence petroleum operation/exploration. M/s Jacson International could not mobilized the rig within the stipulated time and even during the period when the extension was granted by ONGC. Consequently, the exemption at Sr.No. 356 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., (read with Condition No. 41) was sought to be denied by revenue. The facts in the instant case are that the appellant had imported certain goods, as certified by DGSC and had put most of the goods in use for the stated purpose. A part of the goods were leftovers. We find that the facts in the instant case are significantly different from the facts in the case of Jagson International ltd where the importer had failed to fulfil the necessary conditions of place by ONGC. In view of the above, the reliance on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Jagson International ltd(supra), i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
