M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Kandla
- CitationAppeal No. : C/733,882/2005
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that the question whether pipes qualify for import under the Project Import Regulations, 1986, read with Notification No. 42/1996-CUS as amended by Notification No. 91/2002 for drinking water supply projects, is governed by the Supreme Court's decision in Pratibha Industries Ltd v. Commissioner, Raigad, which upheld the Tribunal's view that the exemption extends to the water treatment plant and not to parts of water supply or distribution units; following that binding decision, the appeals are rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of 1) OIA-88-89/2005 dtd 15.4.2055 2) OIA-153/2005-153-KDL-CUS/COMMR-A-/AHD dtd 16.5.2005 Passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-KANDLA ]
M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd M/s Gammon India Limited - Appellant(s)
Vs
Commissioner of CUSTOMS-KANDLA - Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate For Revenue : Shri L Patra, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 2/7/2015
ORDER No. A/10981-10982/2015 dtd 2/7/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is whether Pipes are eligible for import under Project Import Regulation, 1986 by Notification No 42/1996-CUS dtd 31.7.1996 as amended by Notification No 91/2002 where Drinking Water Supply Projects for supply of water for human or human/animal consumption was notified under heading No 98.01 at Sr No 26. Notification No 21/2002 was amended by Notification No 91/2002 dtd 6..9.2002 and the said project was included at Sr No 40. The Adjudicating Authority denied the benefits of the exemption Notification on the ground that the benefit of the exemption notification should be allowed to Water treatment plant and not parts of water supply or distribution units. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pratibha Industrials Ltd vs CCE [2005(188)ELT.433(Tri.Mum). The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Industries Ltd vs C, Raigad vide judgment dtd 27.4.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 53/2005 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the Tribunal Order.
2. In view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court as stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellants are rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami ??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free