TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether power transmission projects fall within the scope of "power project" under Heading 84.66(i) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) whether the imported vehicle is auxiliary equipment of the project; (iii) whether the vehicle imported for use in multiple transmission projects qualifies for assessment as a project import.
Issue (i): Whether power transmission projects fall within the scope of "power project" under Heading 84.66(i) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Analysis: The tariff entry was treated as confined to a project involving generation of power. The transmission sub-stations in question were for evacuation and dispersal of electricity already generated, and the project report itself showed that generation was not part of the present undertaking. On that basis, the transmission activity was held not to amount to a power project for the relevant tariff entry.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the imported vehicle is auxiliary equipment of the project.
Analysis: The expression "auxiliary equipment" was construed strictly as subsidiary equipment directly used in setting up the project. A transport vehicle used to carry transformers to site was treated as transport material rather than equipment directly employed in the setting up of the project. A wider reading was rejected because it would extend the expression to ordinary transport vehicles used incidentally in project work.
Conclusion: The imported vehicle was held not to be auxiliary equipment, against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the vehicle imported for use in multiple transmission projects qualifies for assessment as a project import.
Analysis: The relevant tariff provision was understood to require a nexus with a particular and specified project. The vehicle had been imported for several transmission sub-stations and was not relatable to one specified project. Since the contract was not tied to a single project, the condition for project-import treatment was not satisfied.
Conclusion: The vehicle was held ineligible for project-import assessment, against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The imported vehicle did not satisfy the requirements of the project-import scheme and the refusal to register the contract was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: For project-import benefit, the imported item must be directly used as auxiliary equipment for the initial setting up of a specified power project, and a mere transport vehicle employed across multiple transmission projects does not qualify.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
