9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the import consists of one film processor and not a complete minilab. The appellants have produced industrial licence to show that the items had been allowed for manufacture by the Director of Industries, Bombay. Industrial Licence is for manufacture of printing rolls, developing rolls, X-Ray lith films, developers etc. yet the Collector (Appeals) held that the item is required to be considered for the concessional rate of duty under the ``Project Import in view of the recommendatory letter dated 2-5-1985 issued by the said authorities. The Revenue is contending in this appeal that the assessment under Heading 84.66 of CTA, 1975 can be considered only in respect of complete minilab system comprising of processor, developing, printing, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of Customs v. Vijayawada Offset Printers [1995 (78) E.L.T. 516] 2. Collector of Customs v. Sri Sarathi Studios (P) Ltd. [1994 (73) E.L.T. 382] 3. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, [1994 (70) E.L.T. 769] 4. Collector of Customs v. Colorama Lab. Pvt. Ltd. [1994 (70) E.L.T. 93]. 3. The Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order is sustainable and the letter granted by the DGTD cannot be challenged by the Customs Authorities. He submitted that the installation of the item will always bring in increase in production. Therefore, the ground taken by the Revenue is not sustainable. He submitted that there is no dispute on the fact of increase capacity and substantial increase in production on installation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the appellants had imported fully automatic and computerised equipments for developing of colour films, printing, enlarging and processing of colour films in terms of licence granted by Chief Controller. The Assistant Collector refused the registration on the ground that the Heading 84.66 related to machinery including films, apparatus, appliances etc. for initial setting up of the plant or substantial expansion of the existing unit of a specified industrial plant. The Tribunal negatived his contention and held that the entire project itself was to be considered for duty concession as it was for initial setitng up of the industry. In this case, the appellants had already imported the entire project and had already set up the project by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch also relied on the judgement rendered in the case of Sujatha International v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 413, wherein the Tribunal has held that the order placed, acceptance, Letter of Credit etc. would not be taken as a contract, as contemplated in Heading 84.66 and that there should be some sort of formal contract. It was also held that the camera was not relatable to any particular project. In the present case there is no separate registration of contract obtained for the imported item and, therefore, the ruling of Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (supra) is also applicable in the present case. 8. In the case of National Newsprint Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 153 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
