TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngwith interest. The benefit of the SHIS Scheme under Notification No. 104/2009-Cuswas also denied on the ground that the „Rotor Blades‟ manufactured by using the aforesaid capital goods would not fall under the category of "relating to plastic sector" as required to get thebenefit of aforesaid notification. 4. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of „Rotor Blades‟ used for wind turbine. He pointed out that for manufacture of Rotor Blades there are 3 key equipment required: (1) Stationary Blade Mould (SBM), (2) Blade Shell Lifting Device(BSLD), and(3) Turning Cradle (TC). He pointed out that these equipment are uniquely designed for manufacture of every specific model of rotor blade. He pointed out that two equipment namely: Turning Cradle andBlade Shell Lifting Device were imported by the appellant. He pointed out that the appellant entered into a contract with Global Customer "Gamesa" to manufacture and supply specific model of rotor blades., LM Wind Power Blade (Qinhuangdao) China manufactured SBM and TC in house and procured BLSD from third partyi.eDenmarkand installed at its factory premises. The said equipment were installed in China and 7 Blades....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued by a panel of Customs Officers and Mr. Lalwani finding that on re-examination, the goods found to be new and unused. The report noted that the physical condition of the goods did not show any sign of installation of the subject goods. Also, there was no evidence/sign to suggest that the TC was used even for trial purposes. 5 30.12.2015 Another certificate issued by Mr. Lalwani stating that on re-examination the goods found to be new and unused and approximate value of goods is Rs. 24 crores. The SCN was issued to the appellant seeking to adopt the revised certificate of Shri Lalwani and treat the imported goods as new and un-used. The notice also proposed to re-value the goods at Rs. 24 Crore as against the declared value of Rs. 16 Crore (approx). The notice also proposed to deny the benefit of SHIS(Status Holder Incentive Scehme) on the ground that the goods imported by them did not relate toplastic sector. The appellant had obtained the SHIS Scheme from M/s. SR Steel India Ltd under Notification No. 104/2009 dated 14.09.2009. Para 3.16.3 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 provide the use of SHIS Scrips in specific terms listed in the said policy. The appellant had claime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese are the documents which were produced by the noticee for clearance of the imported cradle. Therefore, copies of the same must be in the possession of the noticee. However, copies of the same were supplied to the noticee vide letter dated 28.07.2016. (ii) Next document appearing at serial number 3 of that table is Panchnama dated 18.11.2015. The department informed the noticee vide letter dated 14.09.2016 that regular examination was carried out and no panchnama was drawn during the examination. Therefore, there was no question of supply of the same. However, despite that reply the noticee is still demanding the same. (iii) Further, the document appearing at serial number 4 of that table, is examination report/ certificate dated 19.11.2015 of the Chartered Engineer. The same was in the form of his self-statement. It was supplied to the noticee vide letter dated 28.07.2016. Thereafter, the noticee asked for certificate in Form-B, Ref No. NJL/Kandla/15-16 dated 16.10.2015 for which department informed them that it was not relied upon. It was again demanded by the noticee and I instructed for supply of the same, It was supplied to them vide letter dated 29.12.2017. (iv) N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vided to them, the noticee again vide letter dated 22.10.2016 demanded copy of panchnama dated 10.12.2015, I find that it is not possible to supply a document which is not in existence and demand of such a document is not logical. (vii) Further, the demanded document, appearing at serial number 27 of that table, is copy of statement of Shri Sandeep Shan, working Operation Controller with the noticee. The same was supplied to the noticee vide letter dated 14.09.2016 by the Assistant Commissioner (SIIB), Custom House, Kandla, However, the noticee informed vide letter dated 22.10.2016 that though mentioned in the letter, copy of the statement was not found enclosed with the letter. Therefore, the same was again supplied to the noticee vide letter dated 06.01.2017 by the Assistant Commissioner (SIIB), Custom House, Kandla. However, vide letter dated 14.12.2017, the notices has again demanded the same. (viii) Next document, appearing at serial number 31 of that table, is copy of Demand Draft No. 119055 dated 11.05.2015. The said demand draft was submitted by the noticee. Therefore, copy of the same must be available with them. However, the department supplied copy of the said dema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued. However, vide letter dated 14.12.2017, the noticed again insisted for supply of statement dated 18.11.2015 of the Chartered Engineer. The facts were informed to the noticee, despite it the noticee has continued to demand the same. A document which is not in existence cannot be supplied but it appears that the noticee is determined not to understand the same, (xii) Next document, appearing at serial number 35 of that table, is Chartered Engineer's report consequent upon re-examination on 09.12.2015. Vide letter dated 14.09.2016 the Assistant Commissioner informed the noticee that it was supplied to them and also received by them on 01.08.2016. However, vide letter dated 14.12.2017, the noticee again insisted for supply of the same, I find that copies of the same documents were demanded again and again by the noticee. (xiii) Next document, appearing at serial number 36 of that table, is copy of carlier certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer which is claimed to have been cancelled. I find that the noticee was informed that the said certificate was not relied upon by the department and hence the same was not supplied to them. I also find that copy of the said c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods for the purpose of assessment treating the same as new and un-used. We find merit in the impugned order. The impugned order clearly lays out, that all the efforts were made by revenue to provide the documents and also to provide the opportunity to the appellants to cross examine Shri N J Lalwani. 8. The entire issue hinges on the report of Sh N.J. Lalwani, the Government Approved valuer. We find that in the instant case Shri N J Lalwani, the government approved value has changed his stance and suo-moto revised on the report. In that background, cross-examination of Shri N J Lalwani becomes relevant to find the reasons why the report was changed and what was the fact which resulted in change of stance. The appellants were seeking cross examination of Shri N.J. Lalwani, however prior to cross examination they wanted certain documents. There was a lot of correspondence about the fact if the documents are already supplied or already available with appellants. The appellants were insisting on supply of documents whereas revenue believed all documents are supplied/ available with appellant. From Para 6 above, we find that Revenue has made all efforts and provided all the documents n....