LexM/S. IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015]4S.C.R.1
M/S. IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD.
A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
(Civil Appeal No. 5282 of 2004)
APRIL 15, 2015'
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Customs Act, 1962 - ss. 25, 108- Customs duty and
B
c
additional duty- Exemption - Import of hot mix plant for the
purpose of construction of roads in the State - Purchase order
split between two companies, one was to supply critical items
required for the setting up of the plant and other was to supply o
various containers, frames, ducting, tanks and a thraw belt
conveyer- Claim of exemption from the payment of customs
duty and additional duty -
Commissioner and CESTAT
auth0rities holding that a complete.plant in an unassembled
form had not been imported, thus, exemption notification E
would not apply- Interference with - Held: Not called for-
Hot mix plant of the type mentioned alone is exempted from
payment of customs duty- Such plant in its entirety must be
imported in an unassembled form -
Reliance on the
statements made by representatives of the companies to the F
custom officer that the imported plant did not have the
essential characteristics of hot mix plant not unwarranted in
law, since the statements are admissible in evidence u!s. 108
- Thus, both the oral and the documentary evidence lead to G
the same conclusion that what was imported was not hot mix
plant that was complete in itself- Custom Tariff Act, 1975- r
2(a).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
1
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 4 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1.1 Judged by the test that whereas
eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification
are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that
the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption
notification should be construed liberally, it is clear that
B a hot mix plant of the type mentioned alone is exempt
from payment of customs duty. It is meant that such plant
in its entirety must be imported albeit in an unassembled
form. Judged by this test, it is clear that the concurrent
C findings of fact of the Commissioner and the CESTAT
requires no interference by this Court inasmuch as both
authorities have held that a complete plant in an
unassembled form has not in fact been imported. [Para
4] [15-B-D]
D
E
Commissioner of Customs {Imports), Mumbai v. Tullow
India Operations Ltd. (2005) 13 SCC 789: 2005 (4)
Suppl. SCR 973; G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v.
Commissioner, Trade Tax, UttarPradesh (2009) 2 SC~
90: 2008 (16) SCR 315- relied on.
1.2 Statements made to an Officer of Customs are
admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs
Act, 1962. The Court has merely to scrutinize whether
F the admissions made were voluntarily or otherwise. In
the instant case, it is clear that unretracted statements
made by none other than the Vice President of the
appellant company, representatives of M Company, and
a representative of National Highways Authority of India,
G to the effect that the imported goods were only
components and had not attained the essential
characteristics of a plant having never been retracted
later, were made voluntarily. Reliance on the said
statements, therefore, by the authorities below cannot
H
M/S IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD. v.
3
COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
be said to be unwarranted in law. [Para 5] [15-H; 16-A-C] A
1.3 The counsel for the appellant relied upon a
letter dated 18.1.2002 written by the Vice President of
the appellant to the Chief Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai and another letter dated 20.1.2002 by National B
Highways Authority of India to the Chief Commissioner
of Customs, Chennai. A perusal of these letters would
also show that what had to be manufactured in India
would alone ultimately go to make up a complete plant.
This is clear from a statement made in the letter dated C
18.1.2002 that what has been imported is "the basic
character" of the hot mix plant and not a complete plant
as it is clear that what is manufactured indigenously
would alone ultimately complete the plant. Further, 0
representative of the National Highways Authority of
India admitted that a complete plant had not been
imported and that the imported components did not have
the essential characteristics of a hot mix plant. Thus, both
the oral evidence and the documentary evidence E
ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that
what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was
complete in itself. [PaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.