TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. 2. The reason for confirming the demand that was proposed in the show cause notice dated 18.06.2009 is that the appellant had violated the conditions contained in Notification No. 21/2002 dated March 1, 2002 [the Exemption Notification], inasmuch as the appellant had violated the condition contained in the Certificate issued by the Director General of Hydro Carbons [DGH] to the effect that the goods have to be re-exported within the time stipulated in the Certificate. The contention of the appellant that the aforesaid Exemption Notification did not require the importer to export the goods was not accepted for the reason that such a condition was contained in the certificates issued by the DGH. The further contention of the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and claimed the benefit of Exemption Notification. The said Notification exempts goods of the description specified in Column (3) from so much of the duty of customs as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in Column (5). It is not in dispute that the goods imported by the appellant are mentioned at Serial No. 214 of the said Notification. The condition attached to Serial No.214 is that condition No.29 should be satisfied. Condition No.29 provides that where the importer is a sub-contractor, he should produce at the time of importation the following documents, namely:- "(i) a certificate from a duly authorized officer of the Directorate General of Hydro Carbons in the Minist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and have been imported under licence or mining lease, as the case may be, referred to in the clause containing the name of such contractor. Condition No.29 does not stipulate that the sub-contractor has to export the goods within a stipulated time. It is, however, seen that the certificate that was issued by the DGH mentions that the appellant has to re-export the goods by 30th of April 2007, which date was subsequently extended to 30th of June 2007. 8. The core issue that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether such a condition could have been imposed by the DGH. 9. The DGH was required to certify that the imported goods were required for petroleum operations and had been imported under a licence or mining lease and contain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....importation would not mean that it can be denied the benefit of paragraph 2.17 of the said Policy. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:- "5.1 The goods were imported by the appellant claiming the benefit of Notification 21/2002. As per the said Notification, for availment of exemption, the importer has to produce a certificate from the DGH certifying that the imported goods are required for petroleum operations in terms of a contract under the new exploration licensing policy. In the present case, the appellant has produced such a certificate from the DGH at the time of importation of the goods and, therefore, they have fulfilled the terms and conditions of the Notification. There is also no time period stipulated regarding ....