TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms House, Visakhapatnam, vide letter dated August 23, 2010. The said authority registered the subject contracts dated 18.07.2007 and 20.02.2009 under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 on 06.12.2010 under F. No.S 13(a)/07/2010-AP and imports were being made pursuant to such registration for the project requirements. 3. In the course of such project implementation, there arose a situation that the original supplier, M/s MIPP International Ltd., Brunei, could not supply certain goods that the appellant needed urgently. This led to the appellant sourcing the same from M/s. Waterfront Fluid Controls Ltd. UK. The appellant imported the same from M/s. Waterfront Fluid Controls Ltd. UK, filing the impugned Bill of Entry for import of the goods, described as, "manual gear-operated HDPE penstock with accessories", without claiming the benefit of Serial Number 507 of Notification Number 12/2012 - Cus, dated 17-3-2012, which provided for exemption from BCD and CVD in respect of goods imported for setting up a mega power project, subject to the condition that the contract for supply of goods is registered under the Project Import Regulations 1986. 4. While the contract dated 18.07.2007 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y air, and were cleared on payment of applicable duties. 7. Subsequently, after amending the CIF value, the sponsoring authority issued a fresh letter dated 14.06.2013, which was submitted to the said Assistant Commissioner of customs, (Project Import), Custom House, Visakhapatnam, who then issued a letter dated 18.07.2013 raising certain queries. The appellant, vide letter dated July 31, 2013, provided their explanation, and requested the said authority to register the said contract entered with M/s. Waterfront Fluid Controls Limited. In the meanwhile, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, contending that they had filed the impugned bill of entry for the clearance of the goods imported from M/s Waterfront Fluid Controls Limited, wherein they had omitted to claim the benefit of Serial Number 507 of the Notification Number, 12/2012 Cus ibid. It was also contended that while the supplier of the impugned goods was covered in the letter of the sponsoring authority, due to the delay in obtaining the said letter caused by the change in the supplier for the goods concerned, they were constrained to import without availing the benefit under Project Import Regul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms vs. DPS India (P) Ltd, 1997 (92) E.LT A130 (SC) * Frontier Aban Drilling (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2016 (343) E.LT 227 (Tri-Mumbai) * Wockhardt Medical Centre vs. Collector of Customs 1993 (66) E.LT 522 Tribunal * Mangalore Chemicals & fertilizers Ltd VS Deputy Commissioner 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (SC) 10. Shri Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative, appearing for the respondent, reiterated the findings of the appellate authority in the impugned Order in Appeal. Ld. A.R contended that exemption notifications ought to be strictly construed and placed reliance on the decision in CC GST & Others Vs. Safari Retreats, Private Limited, 2024 (10) TMI 286 - Supreme Court, and the constitution bench decision in Dilip Kumar's case. It is the Ld. A.R's submission that when the primary condition of registering the contract has not been done, the benefit ought not to be extended. 11. Heard both sides, carefully perused the appeal records and the decisions cited as relied upon. 12. The issue that arises for determination is, given the aforesaid fact circumstances of the appellant's case, whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Project Import Reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification or in the exemption clause, has to be strictly construed. When once the ambiguity or doubt is resolved by interpreting the applicability of exemption clause strictly, the Court may construe the notification by giving full play bestowing wider and liberal construction. The ratio of Parle Exports case (supra) deduced as follows : "Do not extend or widen the ambit at stage of applicability. But once that hurdle is crossed, construe it liberally". 47. We do not find any strong and compelling reasons to differ, taking a contra view, from this. We respectfully record our concurrence to this view which has been subsequently, elaborated by the Constitution Bench in Hari Chand case (supra)." 15. Thus, when the appellant had already submitted an application on April 25, 2013, with the said Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Vizag for registering the contracts mentioned in the Sponsoring Authority's Letter dated 22.02.2013, which mentioned two contracts, namely, contract entered by the appellant with (i) M/s. ADTEC Automation and with (ii) M/s. Waterfront Fluid Controls Ltd, it is evident that these supplies had the sanction of the sponsoring authority. Further, according t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to be incorporated. For the said purposes the appellant sought return of the initial sponsoring letter only to further amend the contract, which is in compliance of the mandate of Regulation 6 of the Project import regulations relating to amendment of contract. 17. Consequent to such amendment obtained, as evidenced by the Sponsoring Authorities letter dated 14.06.2013, it was submitted to the said Assistant Commissioner (Project Imports). We also notice that stipulations in Regulation 6 of the Project Import Regulations ibid, while stating that the importer shall make an application for registration of amendments to the said contract to the proper officer, duly accompanied by the documents stipulated therein, nevertheless, provides for such amendment of the contract referred to in regulation 5 to be made before or after registration. It further stipulates that on finding the application to be in order the proper officer shall make a note of the amendments in the register. Pertinently it does not thereafter provide any requirement to circle back to compliance under Regulation 5. In the interregnum, the goods supplied were cleared on payment of full duties by the appellants witho....