TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether boilers and accessories imported for use in a captive power plant were eligible for exemption as goods imported for a power project under Notification No. 71/85-Cus.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 71/85-Cus. extended to goods falling under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff when imported for power projects, and no exclusion for captive power plants existed in the notification during the relevant period. The subsequent public notice and later amending notification introducing an exclusion for captive power plants were held to operate only from their respective dates and could not be read back into the earlier notification. The later amendment was also treated as not governing the import in question, which had been registered and assessed before that exclusion came into force.
Conclusion: The captive power plant was eligible to be treated as a power project for the purpose of Notification No. 71/85-Cus., and the exemption was available. The rejection of the Revenue's challenge was therefore in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The imported boilers and accessories remained entitled to the project import exemption, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express exclusion in the exemption notification then in force, a captive power plant used for generation of power could not be denied the benefit available to power projects, and a later restricting amendment could not be applied retrospectively.
TaxTMI 
