2008 (6) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 14 to 17/2006 (H-II) Cus. dated 28-2-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals - II) Hyderabad. 2. Shri B. V. Kumar, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 3. We heard b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e proceeded against the appellant and finalized the contract denying the benefit of concessional assessment on the ground that the appellants had not produced the installation certificate as per Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986. 5. The learned Advocate submitted that Regulation 7 does not prescribe any such installation certificate. The said regulation reads as follows : "The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... following decision: Polyplex Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.-Del.) 7. The following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) is very relevant. "11…… There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder. 10. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that Regulation 7 is not a condition determining the eligibility of the impugned goods for the benefit of concessional rate of assessment under Project Import Regulation. It is only a procedural requirement. There is no evidence to show that the equipment has not been installed. Revenue could have deputed some officer to verify the f....