Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2024 (4) TMI 1020

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ill of Entry (BE) dated 11.2.2013 for the clearance of the goods declared as 'New Python 5000 Pothole Patchers Machine' with a total value of USD 495,000 (CIF) classified under CTH 84305090 and claimed the benefit of nil duty exemption vide Customs Notification No. 12/2012 (Sl. No. 368, list 16). List 16 contains a list of 21 goods. The Appellant sought the benefit of sl no 4 of the said list. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of notification to the importer on the ground that the imported machines being used to patch-up or repair minor cracks / potholes which develop on the existing road surface were not found specified under List 16 and further held that the respondent did not have a valid contract with NHAI etc. for the const....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red under the benefit of exemption" he permitted the benefit of machines mentioned at Sl. No. 4 & 5 of List 16 appended to the said notification, when he should have concluded that the same are not eligible to claim the said notification benefit. Commissioner (Appeals) had totally disregarded the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal's order in an identical issue in the case of M/s. Gammon India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva as reported in (2013) TIOL 471 CESTAT (Mumbai) which formed the basis for the Lower Adjudicating Authority's Order dated 24.05.2013. In the said order the Hon'ble Tribunal had denied the benefit of Notfn 12/2012 claimed in respect of the imported 'Electronic Paver finisher' on the grounds th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith blower (9) Toll collection and traffic control equipment (10) Electronic Total station instrument for topographic survey (11) Global Positioning System (GPS) Instrument (12) Stone crushing (cone type) plants (13) Hydraulically operated self-propelled piling rig with accessories (14) Hydraulically operated rough terrain self-propelled 100 tons crane with telescopic boom (15) Hydraulically operated self-propelled soil boring equipment with casing pipes for deep earth anchor (16) Mobile concrete pump placer of 90/120 cu m/hr capacity (17) Automatic asphalt extraction equipment (18) Fully automatic, hydraulically operated, pre-cast segment moulds ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for maintenance and repair activities. The machines listed in list 16 cover a whole gamut of road construction activity like, paver finisher, surface dressing eqp., kerb laying, bridge inspection unit, stone crushing plant, tunnel excavators etc and not to road laying equipment/ machines alone. The matter has been discussed elaborately at para 7 of the impugned order. Further machines at Sl. Nos.4 and 5 can also be used for repair and maintenance activities of roads. We hence do not find the impugned order to be erroneous on this ground. 4.3 Secondly it is the view of revenue that one of the conditions for claiming the notification benefit mandates that the importers possess a road construction agreement/contract at the time the goods ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....must state at the outset, it is well settled that a decision is only an authority for what it decides and not what may logically follow from it (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra - (1968) 2 SCR 154 / CCE v. Alnoori Tobacco Products - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 135 (S.C.)). In the case of M/s. Gammon India Ltd., Mumbai, a consignment of "Electronic Sensor Paver Vogetel model super 1800-2 with AB 600-2 TV screen for laying bituminous pavement up to 9 M width along with accessories' was imported and duty exemption claimed under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1.3.2002 vide Sl. No. 230 of the Table annexed to the said notification. The said notification vide List 18 (Sl. No. 2) granted duty exemption to "Electronic paver finisher (with senso....