1986 (7) TMI 261 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for 'Project Import' benefits under T.I. 84.66.
2. Compliance with the conditions for concessional assessment under Notification No. 183-Custom.
3. The timing and procedural requirements for registration of the import contract.
4. The validity of the refund claim for duty paid on 12 Air Jet Looms.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for 'Project Import' benefits under T.I. 84.66:
The respondents imported 24 Air Jet Looms, with the first 12 cleared on 31.3.1983, and later sought 'Project Import' benefits under T.I. 84.66. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the benefit, assuming the contract was registered before importation. However, the Tribunal found that the contract was registered only on 18.4.1983, after the clearance of the first 12 looms, thus disqualifying them from the 'Project Import' benefits for those looms under the specific terms of T.I. 84.66.

2. Compliance with the conditions for concessional assessment under Notification No. 183-Custom:
The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim because the respondents did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 183-Custom, which requires:
- Goods imported as per a registered contract.
- Import against a specific contract.
- Contract registered in the prescribed manner.
- Registration before the clearance of goods.

The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the statutory conditions are mandatory and not subject to waiver.

3. The timing and procedural requirements for registration of the import contract:
The respondents argued that delays in obtaining the Textile Commissioner's recommendation prevented timely registration. They cited prior practices and judgments to support their case. However, the Tribunal noted that the statutory requirement under T.I. 84.66 mandates registration before clearance, which was not done. The Tribunal found no evidence of an application for registration before 31.3.1983 and highlighted that the importers did not indicate any intention to claim 'Project Import' benefits at the time of clearance.

4. The validity of the refund claim for duty paid on 12 Air Jet Looms:
The refund claim filed on 27.4.1983 was based on the premise that the contract registration should apply retrospectively. The Tribunal rejected this, stating that the statutory provisions of T.I. 84.66 do not allow for retrospective registration. The Tribunal also criticized the Collector (Appeals) for erroneous assumptions and lack of application of mind, ultimately restoring the Assistant Collector's order rejecting the refund claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the respondents did not comply with the mandatory conditions for 'Project Import' benefits under T.I. 84.66, as the contract was not registered before the clearance of the goods. The refund claim was, therefore, invalid, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) was set aside, restoring the Assistant Collector's decision.

← Previous Next →