CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
V.K. Agrawal, P.G. CHACKO, JJ.
IVRCL Infrastructures & Projects Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (SEA) -Respondent
Final Order No. 186/2004-B Appeal No. C/699/2002-B
Decided On : 25-02-2004
Per P.G. Chacko : The appellants filed Bill of Entry (for home consumption) No. 369413 dated 28.12.2001 through CHA for clearance of imported goods from Germany declared as HOT MIX PLANT BATCH TYPE WITH ELECTRONIC CONTROLS AND BAG TYPE FILTER ARRANGEMENT 160 TONS PER HOUR CAPACITY valued at DM 5,50,000/-. Clearance was sought under Customs Tariff Heading 8474.80 at 'nil' rate under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001. The Notification vide Serial No. 217 thereof granted full exemption from basic customs duty and additional customs duty, to goods of Chapter 84 specified in List-11, required for construction of roads. The first among the 21 items specified in List-11 under the Notification was "Hot mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag type filter arrangements, more than 120 Tons per hour capacity." The exemption, allowed to the goods specified in the list, was subject to Condition No. 38 stipulated in the Notification. This condition reads:
If-
(a) the goods are imported by-
(i) The Ministry of Surface Transport, or
(ii) a person who has been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highways Authority of India, by the Public Works Department of a State Government or by a road construction corporation under the control of the Government of a State or Union Territory; or
(iii) a person who has been named as a sub-contractor in the contract referred to in (ii) above for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highways authority of India, by Public Works Department of a State Government or by a road construction corporation under the control of the Government of a State or Union Territory;
(b) the importer, at the time of importation, furnishes an undertaking to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, to the effect that he shall use the imported goods exclusively for the construction of roads and that he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of the said goods, in any manner, for a period of five years from the date of their importation; and
(c) in case of goods of serial Nos. 12 and 13 of List 11....."
The goods covered under the aforementioned Bill of Entry were provisionally assessed and clearance thereof without payment of duty was allowed in terms of the Notification to the appellants against requisite Bond and Bank Guarantee. But, before physical clearance, the goods were examined by SIIB officers in the presence of representatives of the appellant-company and their CHA. A detailed scrutiny of import documents and allied investigations were conducted later. The investigative results suggested to the Department that the imported goods were only certain parts/components of what was declared as Hot Mix Plant and that the appellant-company had not been duly authorized by the National Highways Authority of India [NHAI] to import such plant. The appellants waived show-cause notice and made written and oral submissions pleading for the benefit of the Notification. The Commissioner of Customs who finalized the assessment passed the following order:
"(i) I hold that the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 369413 dated 28.12.2001 are only components and not Hot Mix Plant.
(ii) I deny the benefit of duty exemption vide Notification No. 17/2001.
(iii) I order the finalization of the provisional assessment by treating the goods imported as components of the plant.
(iv) I confiscate the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaration of the description of the imported goods. However, I give the importers the option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(v) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importers M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.