2024 (10) TMI 986

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t had entered into the contract dated 22.12.2004 with North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO) for execution of the work of Hydro Mechanical Equipment of the Kameng Hydro Electric Power Project, a 600 MW Mega Power Project to be set up in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. For installation of the power project for M/s NEEPCO, the appellants had imported various capital goods. The appellants had claimed the classification of the products under CTH 72254013 and the benefit under exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012. The Bill of Entry was self-assessed in terms of subsection (1) of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012 was amended vide Notification No. 53/20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted for providing the duty exemption contained therein. Since, the date of effect of the notification dated 26.12.2013 was not specifically provided, it has to be construed that to cure the defect of non-incorporation of the particular power project, which was subsequently done vide notification dated 26.12.2013 should be considered as retrospective in operation and the goods imported by the appellants for installation in the approved power project should be available for the benefit of exemption provided therein. We find that the issue with regard to retrospective applicability of the Notification is no more res integra in view of various authoritative judgments delivered by the judicial forum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of W.P.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l 25, 1994. It was not a new notification granting exemption for the first time in respect of parts of power driven pumps to be used in the factory for manufacture of pumps but clarified the position and made the position explicit which was implicit." 4. Further, in the case of Ralson (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I, 2015 319 E.L.T. 234 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that when the Government rectifies an inadvertent error by way of issuance of the notification, then the same should be treated as corrective/clarificatory and will have retrospective effect. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below : "9. The assessee in the aforesaid case took the same plea by arguing that since the decision of the....