9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assification under Heading 84.66 Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and for the concessional assessment as project import. The facts, briefly, are that the respondents imported automatic camera with accessories against capital goods allowed under Open General Licence (OGL) of Import and Export Policy April, 1984 - March, 1985. They filed an application for registration of their purchase order dated 26-6-1984 under the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulation, 1988 for classification of the goods under Heading 84.66 CTA, 1975. This assessment at concessional rate is available to all items of machinery required for initial setting up of a unit or the substantial expansion of the existing unit. The respondents herein, are engaged in the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted production in 1984 itself, the camera with accessories cannot be considered as import for initial setting up of a project. Therefore, the Assistant Collector rejected the application for registration of the import under Heading 84.66 CTA as Project Import. The Assistant Collector s order was challenged by the respondents before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) noted that the process camera imported is an essential equipment for use in conjunction with the offset printing machines. The import of printing machine was made through canalising agency M/S. Project Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. and that it was purchased by the respondents after import from the canalising agency. The Collector (Appeals), furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had commenced production in 1984. The imported camera, according to the Department, did not lead to any substantial expansion, but only helped in increasing the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the printing machinery already installed and in production. The ld. S.D.R., in this context, also relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. Shri Sarathi Studios (P) Ltd. - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 382 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal, by a majority decision, held that a camera imported for shooting of films will not be eligible for Project Imports concession when the import was without reference to any project and no proper contract existed for the import. 3. Shri Arjun, Marketing Executive of the respondents appeared and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector (Appeals). As against this, it is seen that the Tribunal in the case law cited and relied upon by the ld. S.D.R. in the case of Sri Sarathi Studios (P) Ltd. (supra) had held that order placed, acceptance letter of credit, etc. could not be taken as contract as contemplated in Heading 84.66 CTA and the Tribunal in that decision has also noted the Larger Bench decision in the case of Toyo Engineering India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 769 (Trib.) that the existence of specific contract covering the goods required for initial setting up is a necessary condition to be fulfilled for availing of the concession under Heading 98.01 CTA which is similar to Heading 84.66 CTA. In the case of Sujatha I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
