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

....ppellant.. Shri K. Sambi Reddy, JDR, 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 l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... completed. After a period of ten years, Revenue 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 certific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....concessional rate of duty. Reliance was placed on the 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 c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Departmental Representative reiterated the impugned order. 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 in....