9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Uma Arts Studio had imported one Arriflex-35 IIC BV Camera with accessories under B/F No. 105/7-7-80 and Sound tapes Nagra complete accessories for sound tapes under B/C No. 400/28-10-80 through Cochin Port against Import Licence No. 2034782, dated 14-2-1980 issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras endorsed as Project Import for assessment under Heading 84.60 of Section XVI of CTA and claimed the registration of the contract and assessment under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. The appellants stated that the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs, Madras. The learned Appellate Collector had taken the view that no manufacturing process was involved and only shooting of the film and recording was done which could not be termed as manufacture. She had further observed that Project Import endorsement on the Import Licence was also not acceptable and it was for the revenue authorities to see whether the imported goods can be treated as Industrial Plant or not. She had held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of project import and had rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellants have come in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri K.P. Dandapani, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has referred to the following judgments :- (i) 1984 (17) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal) [Photovisual, Calcutta v. C.C, Calcutta). (ii) 1983 E.L.T. 829 - Swarastra Cement and Chemical Industries. (iii) Writ Petition No. 8398 of 1984 - Das Colour Lab, Madras. (iv) Order No. 232/85-B2, dated 11-12-1985. (v) Order No.l070-1071/86-B2, dated 20-10-1986. (vi) Order No. 805 806/87-B2, dated 23rd March, 1987. Shri Saha has argued that the purchase of camera cannot lead to the inference that there was substantial expansion. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. 5. In reply Shri Dandapani, the learned advocate has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 6. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of The Das Lab v. Collector of Customs, Madras in Writ Petition No. 8398/1984 had held that before the benefit of Project Import under Heading 84.66 could be extended the appellant has to satisfy the following two conditions :- (1) that the importer is a Unit registered either with the DGTD or with the State Director of Industries; and (2) that the said Unit qualifies as a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act. The appellant s unit does not satisfy the second condition i.e. it does not qualify to be a factory under the Factories Act and as such we hold that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Project Import under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Shri Dandapani, the learned advocate had pleaded tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
