TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1975 and subject to Project Imports Regulations, 1986 consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment. 2. M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd had imported five nos. 'piling rigs' valued at Rs. 10,98,98,857 in connection with setting up of the Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project Jhajjar, a mega power project contracted by M/s Aravali Power Company Pvt Ltd and in turn sub-contracted to them, between December 2007 and March 2008. The applicable duty of Rs. 3,27,47,724 was foregone in accordance with notification [no. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002 (at serial no. 400) ] and, on completion of the job on 7th March 2009 and closure of assessment, M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd informed customs authorities on 7th March 2009 about the re-deployment of four of the rigs with another mega power project. 3. On the premise that exemption is specific to the project for which clearance was effected and holding the condition of transfer in circular [no. 49/2011-Cus dated 4th November 2011 ], permitting transfer of construction equipment to another registered project, as breached, proceedings were initiated against the appellant herein to culminate in order [order-in-orig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld conditions were complied with and notwithstanding remedy available to the exchequer for recovery of duty for that reason. 5. According Learned Authorized Representative the re-deployment of goods at another project that was not registered under Project Import Regulations, 1986 was within the knowledge of the all the appellants. Learned Authorized Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacsons Thevara v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise [1992 (61) ELT 343 (SC), and of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. NRB Bearing Ltd [2003 (159) ELT 755 (Tri-Mumbai)] and in Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam v. Sunshine Pulp & Papers Pvt Ltd [2004 (178) ELT 551 (Tri-Bang)]. 6. It is seen that the issue of re-deployment of assets imported for use in eligible 'projects', classifiable against heading 9801 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, had been the subject of several dispute and the special treatment available to 'auxiliary equipment' was set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Toyo Engineering India Ltd, including exemption in accordance with Project Import Regulations, 1986 as well as in the event o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough the rival submissions. We find that the Revenue has failed to establish any provision under Notification No. 132/85 or the Project Import Regulations or under Chapter Heading 98.01 that prohibited sale of goods imported under Chapter Heading 98.01. The Chapter Heading 98.01 is a facility extended and not a concession granted. When a complete plant is imported, it may consist of thousands of different items, parts and components. To classify each and every component separately and to determine the value of each and every component would be a herculean task wasting time of importer as well as Revenue. In these circumstances, Chapter Heading 98.01 has been introduced where the entire plant is classified under a single heading and charged to a single rate of duty. In the instant case, the appellant has clearly imported the goods for bona fide use and manufacture of the intended final product. They have installed machinery in their plant and put the equipment to use for more than two years. It is only when the plant became unviable and was lying idle for more than 18 months that the appellant disposed of the plant. We find that in the absence of any restriction of such sale, the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of an initial unit on the ground that it was used only in shifting of the transformers which would not constitute an integral part of the power project. The vehicles imported were required for transportation of the transformers from railway yards to the erection sites and had no relation to power generation or power project. After transporting the specified number of transformers to the site of sub-station the utility of the vehicles would be over at the end of such transport and thereafter the vehicles could certainly be used for other purposes of the assessee. That the vehicles, which are used in the shifting of the transformers, would not constitute integral activity of the project. In the present case goods imported by the respondent are hydle truck cranes, excavator, shovel loader, truck, forklift truck, power generators, diesel welder, welding rectifier, containers tools and tackles instruments, level nako with tripod, theodtite nako with accessories and tripod besides window air-conditioners, electric typewriter and camera with flash (the total cost of last three items is only Rs. 70,000/-, which is negligible). In fact, it was not disputed before the Tribunal or before us ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention that relocation precluded that desired outcome. We find from the records that the appellant has placed on record, in letter dated 26th October, 2004 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the circumstances of relocation and that the project had yielded substantial expansion as evident in the balance sheet for October, 1995 to December, 1996. It would, therefore, appear that the decision in re Tata Steel Ltd. is not applicable in the present instance. The decision in re Jacsons Thevara upheld the action taken against the importer for having sought assessment as 'project import' when an agreement had already been entered into that would render that claim of 'substantial expansion' to be non-implementable. 8. Learned Counsel places before us the decision of the Tribunal in NOCIL v. Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai [2016-VIL-788-CESTAT-MUM-CU = 2017 (347) E.L.T. 173 (Tri.-Mum.)] which, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. [2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.)], held that perpetual ownership and possession of the imported goods by the project authority was not a condition prescribed for....