2010 (1) TMI 455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iew contrary to the view taken in the case of Shiv Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 714 to hold that the heavy duty engine used for drilling purpose was capital goods. The above appeal was admitted by this Court for consideration vide order dated 26th April, 2007 on following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was right in holding that the imported engines are not capital goods for the purpose of para 9.12 of the Policy and therefore liable to confiscation? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was right in not considering and applying the decisions of Supreme Court in CIT v. Taj Ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TR 44 and Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax - AIR 1986 SC 338, the engines are to be treated as a plant. He further submits that the engines in question here, are used in producing goods either directly or indirectly. Hence, the goods were well without the definition of capital goods contained in the policy. Therefore, no licence was required from the DGFT. 3. Mr. Sridharan, alternatively, submits that at any rate engine does not cease to be a machine or plant or equipment. The engines in question are used for producing oil or gas or either directly or indirectly. He, thus, submits that the engines are capital goods. 4. Mr. Sridharan urged that in the case of Khurana Exports v. Commissioner of Custom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 100 (Tri. - Mumbai), was relied upon by the importer in support of its submission, wherein the Tribunal had taken a view that the diesel engine would be well within the sweep of the capital goods. The said judgment was side-tracked by the Tribunal observing that this judgment related to the assembled engine as such it was not comparable. In our considered view, the said judgment could not have been distinguished by the Tribunal on this slender ground. It was expected on the part of the Tribunal either to deal with the contentions of the parties in detail or to refer it to a Larger Bench if contrary view was to be taken. 7. The very judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Wartsila Ind....