TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed as CVD benefit not extended to turbines under Notification No. 6/2002-CE. Precedent cited.</h1> <h3>M/s. Purti Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I</h3> M/s. Purti Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I - 2017 (350) E.L.T. 274 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Whether the appellants could avail the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE simultaneously with Notification No. 21/2002-Cus for CVD.2. Whether the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE is available to the appellants.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant contended that simultaneous availment of Notification No. 6/2002-CE and Notification No. 21/2002-Cus is permissible, citing a CBEC Circular allowing similar benefits under different notifications. The Circular clarified that such simultaneous availment was possible under specific circumstances, as seen in the case of Notification No. 12/2012-Customs and Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. The appellant argued that both notifications prescribe different rates for Basic Customs Duty and Additional Duty of Customs, thus supporting their claim for simultaneous benefit under the mentioned notifications.Issue 2:The appellant highlighted Notification No. 81/2005-Cus and 33/2005-CE, granting concessional rates and full exemption from Central Excise duty for machinery used in power generation from non-conventional materials. This indicated the government's intent to provide benefits for items used in power generation. Additionally, the appellant referenced a specific case to support their argument that turbines and generators imported for use in projects converting specified wastes into energy should be eligible for the benefits under Notification No. 6/2002-CE.The respondent argued that a previous case decision applied to both imports and domestic manufacturers, suggesting that turbines and generators could be used with any steam source. They contended that turbines and generators were not devices converting waste into energy, as waste conversion occurred in the boiler, not in the turbine or generator. The respondent relied on the decision of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. to support their stance.After reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal referred to the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., where it was established that turbines were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption was specific to devices converting waste into energy, which was done in the boiler, not in the turbine. The Apex Court upheld this decision, further supporting the denial of benefits under Notification No. 6/2002-CE for CVD calculation.The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE could not be extended to the appellants for CVD calculation. The contention regarding the retrospective effect of certain notifications was also rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the findings mentioned above.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
