1997 (12) TMI 387 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification under Heading No. 98.01 of the Customs Tariff for empty seamless steel cylinders, benefit of project imports, denial of registration under Project Import Regulations, interpretation of "initial setting up" of a project.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the classification of 900 empty seamless steel cylinders for dissolved acetylene gas under Heading No. 98.01 of the Customs Tariff for project imports. The appellant, M/s. Orissa Air Products Ltd. (OAPL), sought concessional customs duty rates under project imports regulations, claiming the cylinders were for the initial setting up of a dissolved acetylene gas plant. The dispute arose as the plant had been commissioned in 1985, and the commercial production had commenced. The Asstt. Collector of Customs rejected the registration application, which was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), citing the completion of the plant and the start of commercial production as grounds for denial.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that the import of cylinders was essential for the project's implementation, regardless of the plant's commissioning status. They referenced a Calcutta High Court decision to support their position. However, the respondent contended that since the project was already commissioned and in commercial production, there was no basis for considering the import as part of the initial setup. The licensing details indicated that the project was to be completed within a year of issuance, with specific requirements for cylinder imports.

The Tribunal examined the facts and legal precedents closely. It noted that the mere commissioning of the plant did not necessarily signify the completion of all aspects or the attainment of targeted production capacity. The import of cylinders was deemed crucial for meeting the licensed capacity requirements, constituting the initial setup phase. Referring to the Calcutta High Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of not dismissing recommendations from relevant authorities and interpreting phrases consistently for customs purposes. The rejection of the registration request by the Revenue was deemed unjustified, leading to the allowance of the appeal with appropriate relief for the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, emphasizing the significance of the import of cylinders for the project's initial setup despite the plant's commissioning and commercial production status. The judgment underscored the importance of consistent interpretation of terms and adherence to regulatory recommendations in customs matters.