9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of project import procedure. The application is dated 10-5-1985. They had also produced ITC Licence dated 19-9-1984 duly endorsed for project import under Heading 84.66. They had also produced a letter of the Ministry of Industry dated 30-11-1977. 3. The Assistant Collector however, rejected their application for registration as project import under 84.66 and assessed the goods on merits. They accordingly cleared the goods under protest after paying the duty assessed by the Assistant Collector. Subsequently, they filed an appeal before Collector (Appeals) which was also rejected. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It was his submission that the Karnataka Dairy Development Corpn. had undertaken a project with the help of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitial setting up of the plant. It was their alternative prayer that the items should be deemed to be covered under 84.66 (sic.). 11. It was their submission that the Asstt. Collector had erred in rejecting their application and not registering their contract and not extending the project import benefit. 12. Ld. Collector (Appeals) has also not considered all the grounds urged before him. 13. In response to queries from the Bench, the Ld. Counsel accepted that actually importation is for their Bull Breeding Farm and Frozen Semen Bank established in connection with their Dairy Development Project. 14. In response to further queries from the Bench, the Ld. Counsel stated that they had not filed any project report. He, however, added t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In col. 6 they have mentioned that the items were for initial setting up of the plant but a plain reading of the items as mentioned in the Bills of Entry shows that none of them could possibly be for initial setting up of any plant. These item includes even such things as date stamps etc. 22. Furthermore, admittedly the items imported are required for extraction and preservation of bull s semen and not for the manufacture of any of the items mentioned in Heading 84.66. 23. Moreover, they had shown their production as Five Lac Straws per annum whereas both their technical write-up and the Ld. Counsel s submissions in the court show that the imported items are meant for extracting and preserving semen under deep freeze conditions i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture so that the semen could be preserved for years in deep freeze condition. 28. We have considered the above submissions. We find, that the Ld. Counsel has not been able to show before us that the conditions of Heading 84.66 as it stood at the relevant time were satisfied in any manner. Even otherwise he has not been able to show that their so-called project is one of the projects of the type mentioned or notified under 84.66 and that the imported items could be considered as equipment meant for initial setting up of a specified or notified plant for the purposes of 84.66. In fact their declarations in their application filed before the A.C. appear to be at variance with their own submissions made during the course of this hearing. 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
