A bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and
According to the counsel familiar with the development, the apex court found that the project cost of APML and APRL was either similar or lower than the price of peers/competitors.
The counsel added that the price was lesser than the benchmark per megawatt cost fixed by Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the contract was an EPC contract awarded to the lowest bidder following worldwide bidding called International Competitive Bidding (
According to the counsel, the apex court upheld the findings of both the lower authorities, i.e., adjudicating authority as well as appellate tribunal and confirmed that there was no overvaluation in import of capital goods. The top court dismissed the custom's appeal on Monday.
APML & APRL following ICB, imported goods required for setting up of thermal power projects in Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
Likewise, consortium led by PMC Projects (India) pvt. ltd., which was awarded the contract following ICB, imported goods for setting up of transmission line and substation package for Maharashtra Eastern Grid Power Transmission Co. Ltd. (MEGPTCL).
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), in May 2014, issued show cause notices (SCNs) to APML, APRL, MEGPTCL and others alleging over-valuation in import of capital goods.
The adjudicating authority of DRI in 2017, the same authority which issued the SCNs after dealing with it in detail, held that all the imports were genuine and concluded that the value declared is correct and is not required to be re-determined. Later, SCNs were dropped.
In 2022, the appellate tribunal dismissed the plea filed by the customs department and confirmed that there was no overvaluation while importing the equipment by Adani.
SEE ALSO: