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>Tribunal sets aside duty demand and penalties, ruling in favor of appellants under Notification No. 21/2002-CUS.</h1> <h3>M/s Villayati Ram Mittal Versus Commissioner of Customs Import-Mumbai And Shri Rohit Mittal Versus Commissioner of Customs Import-Mumbai</h3> M/s Villayati Ram Mittal Versus Commissioner of Customs Import-Mumbai And Shri Rohit Mittal Versus Commissioner of Customs Import-Mumbai - TMI Issues involved:The judgment involves the interpretation of conditions of Notification No. 21/2002-CUS regarding the importation and use of piling rigs for construction of roads, specifically focusing on whether the imported goods were used as per the conditions, sold within the stipulated period, or otherwise disposed of.Details of the judgment:*Issue 1: Violation of conditions of exemption notification*The appellants imported two piling rigs claiming exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-CUS. The show cause notice alleged that the appellants violated the conditions by not using the rigs exclusively for road construction and disposing of them. The original authority confirmed duty demand, imposed penalties, and confiscated the rigs, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.*Issue 2: Arguments of the appellants*The appellants argued that they had used the goods for road construction as required, and the possession given to others for financial reasons did not constitute disposal. They challenged the evidence presented by the Revenue, highlighting discrepancies in proving alternate use or sale of the goods. They also referenced a CBEC clarification allowing relocation of machinery for road projects.*Issue 3: Revenue's stance and Tribunal's analysis*The Revenue contended that the appellants breached the notification conditions by using the rigs for a different purpose at DMRC and disposing of them. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence and submissions, noting that the imported goods were indeed used for road construction within the specified period. Lack of evidence showing alternate use or sale, coupled with the appellants' continued control over the rigs, led the Tribunal to conclude that the conditions were not violated.*Final Decision*The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the appellants, as it was established that the conditions of the exemption notification were not breached. The judgment was pronounced on 31.03.2023.
TaxTMI 