2018 (10) TMI 1083 - AT - Customs

Tribunal remands case for reconsideration in light of new Supreme Court decision

Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva Versus Patel Engineering Ltd

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the first appellate authority for reconsideration in light of a new Supreme Court decision, altering the ... Benefit of exemption at serial no. 217 in notification no. 17/2001-Cus dated 1st March 2001 - import of machinery and equipment - according to Revenue, the benefit is limited to such as are in possession of a contract awarded by the specified authorities for the specified purpose - Held that:- It is amply clear from the records that the first appellate authority had been given strict, and particular, directions on the judgments to be relied upon following which the impugned order had been issued. By no stretch of imagination can it be said at this stage that the first appellate authority detracted from the directions of the Tribunal - Having complied with the directions of the Tribunal and, having rendered a finding on the basis of such decision as enumerated to the appellate authority by the Tribunal, no flaw can be ascribed to the order. In order to enable the proper application of the binding law, the matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority, after setting aside the impugned order, for the particular purpose of deciding the dispute in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in re Gammon India Ltd. [2011 (7) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] - appeal disposed off by way of remand. Issues:- Appeal against order of first appellate authority regarding import of machinery and equipment claiming exemption- Entitlement for benefit of exemption under notification no. 17/2001-Cus dated 1st March 2001- Interpretation of contract awarded by specified authorities for specified purpose- Compliance with directions of Tribunal and subsequent decision by Hon’ble Supreme CourtAnalysis:1. The appeal before the Tribunal stemmed from a dispute over the import of machinery and equipment seeking exemption under notification no. 17/2001-Cus dated 1st March 2001. The first appellate authority, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), had initially disposed of the challenge to the order of the original authority, which provisionally assessed the import but later denied the exemption benefit, leading to encashment of the bank guarantee.2. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter back to the original authority to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and consider relevant precedents like IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd and Techni Bharathi Ltd. The first appellate authority, in alignment with these precedents, ruled in favor of the importer, prompting the Revenue to file the current appeal.3. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of entitlement for exemption benefit, with Revenue contending that only entities possessing contracts awarded by specified authorities were eligible. The Learned Authorised Representative argued that the importer did not meet these criteria, citing the decision in Gammon India Ltd, which clarified that only the joint venture awarded the contract was entitled to the benefit.4. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and records, the Tribunal acknowledged that the first appellate authority had followed the directions provided by the Tribunal in issuing its order. However, a subsequent Supreme Court decision in the case of Gammon India Ltd had altered the legal landscape, making it necessary to remand the matter back to the first appellate authority for reconsideration in light of this new binding precedent.5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous order to enable a fresh assessment in accordance with the updated legal position established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of applying the prevailing law of the land in resolving the dispute effectively.