Exemption notification benefit sustained where machinery was used in the road project and temporary testing did not defeat eligibility.

The exemption notification remained available because the machinery and equipment were found, on the basis of section 108 statements and the record, to have been used in the road project; their temporary transfer to the Metro site was only for testing and did not amount to use in that project. The HC held these factual findings were neither perverse nor unsupported by the record, so no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Customs dated 01.03.2002 on the footing that the machines and equipment were used in a road project and were sent to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation site only for testing, and whether the Tribunal's factual findings suffered from perversity or any error of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal's conclusion rested on the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on the factual finding that the machinery and equipment were used in a road project. Their temporary movement to the Metro site was found to be only for testing and not for use in that project, so the notification condition requiring use in the specified project remained satisfied. The High Court found that these findings were consistent with the record and not perverse, and therefore no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the notification benefit, and the Revenue's appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual findings show compliance with the conditions of an exemption notification and those findings are not perverse, no substantial question of law arises in appeal.

---