9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Heading 84.66 considering the goods imported as Project Import, was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the machines imported did not constitute an industrial plant or project and that they cannot be said to be meant for substantial expansion of existing project. The appellants, however, have pleaded that theirs being a manufacturing company having approved manufacturing programme from appropriate authority, the goods imported by them should enjoy the benefit of Project Import. In support of their contention the appellants have also referred to an importation by M/s. Gramophone Company of India where similar goods were allegedly allowed benefit of Project Import. The importation by M/s. Gramophone Company of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so informed that they have not any project report and that they have applied for registration certificate and the same has not been received by them till 30th January, 1984. On scrutiny of the documents, it was found by the Revenue that the equipments to be imported did not make an industrial plant or a part of industrial plant or project within the scope of Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was alleged that these goods were not meant for the manufacture of any of the items specified under the Industries Development Regulation Act, 1951 (vide Order No. S-37-C Misc. 221/83-A(vi), dated 7-9-1983), in the circumstances it was alleged by the Revenue that the Labelling machine and the Cello wrapping machine cannot get the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar goods were allowed under Project Import; that the Dy. Collector s decision was a prejudicial one inasmuch as he relied on an earlier order and did not apply his mind to the present imports nor has he given any reason for rejecting their claim; that the Collector (Appeals) also erred in holding that the machines imported could not be considered as machines required for manufacturing purpose and/or for expansion of the existing project. In support of his contention, the ld. consultant cited and relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Super Recording Company Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 17, the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of D.P.S. India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 837. Again t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities, the ld. JDR submitted that the appeal merits rejection straightaway. In support of his contention, the ld. DR cited and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gramophone Company India Ltd. reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 247. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides and considered them. The dispute before us in non-registration of a contract under the provisions of Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 read with Chapter Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. Whereas the important clause of the Regulations have already been cited and reproduced in the submissions of the Departmental Representative, however, for proper appreciation of the findings of the lower authorities, Chapter 84.66 (1) is repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that the items imported did not qualify for classification under Chapter Heading 84.66 of the 1st schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 7. We also observe that one of the requirements of the Project Imports Regulations, 1965 was that a clearance from the Director General of Technical Development was required to be obtained. From the evidence on record, we do not find that any such clearance was taken from the DGTD. However, a certificate from Development Commissioner (SSI Unit) was produced. But this certificate cannot be termed substantial compliance of the requirement of law. From the evidence on record, we also observe that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that the certificate given by the Development Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants, we find that the facts in those cases were different from those of the case before us and we, therefore, hold that the cases are distinguishable. 10. The ld. DR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gramophone Co. India Ltd. In this case, we find that the issue was different in as much as the issue was : What does the expression `service industry mean for purpose of Project Import Regulations, 1986 and thus the decision of the Tribunal in this case also does not support the contentions of the Deptt. Representative. 11. Having examined the various contentions raised before us and the case law cited and as discussed above, we hold that the machines imported were not a part of the project enumerated und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
