Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Project Import assessment for the LPG storage terminal project claimed as a Port Development Project under Notification No. 42/96-Cus dated 23/07/1996.
Analysis: The project was registered under Heading 98.01 and the competent State authority had expressly accepted the proposal and clarified that duty concession under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 could be permitted. The project authority's certificate covered the LPG import and storage facility, and the Revenue could not disregard that certification merely because the facility was stated to be for the appellants' own use. The material on record also showed use of the storage facility by other oil companies, supporting the appellants' case. Applying the principle that the Revenue cannot go behind the certificate of the project authority, the denial of project import benefit was unsustainable.
Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the benefit of Project Import Regulations for the project in question, and the demand for differential duty and de-registration of the project were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent project authority certifies a project as eligible for project import benefit, the customs authorities cannot deny the exemption by reappraising that certification in the absence of contrary legal basis.