9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f these goods under Heading 84.66 of C.T.A. 1975, after applying for and getting registered the requisite contract under the relevant rules. The lower authority denied the benefit of assessment under this heading on the observation that the plant of M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Co. Ltd. had already been set up fully and had started commercial production as early as in 1980. She held that the impugned goods imported in 1985 were the power plant and could not be termed to be goods imported for initial setting up or for substantial expansion of the fertiliser plant. This order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) resulting in this appeal being filed before us. 2. Ld. Advocate referred to Public Notice No. 164, dated 19-11-1985 issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the judgment of the Tribunal in the Toyo Engineering Ltd. - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 769. Shri Ali claimed that for benefit under this heading a contract must exist and the contract must be registered. In the present case, the existence of a contract has not been shown. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Vijaywada Printers - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 516 also it has been held that the contract could not be registered only on the basis of a purchase order. Referring to the judgment of Bombay High Court in Subhash Photographics - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 270, he claimed the benefit of classification under project import would not be available where only a part of the project was imported. The same view has been taken, he submitted, in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the supplier. 7. In the case of Vijaywada [Offset] Printers also registration was sought to be made only on the basis of a purchase order. This was held to be satisfactory fulfilment of the condition under Heading 84.66. From the lower order also it is clear that initially while lower authority has agreed to register the contract under 84.66, on careful scrutiny of the documents she had refused to extend the benefit of such assessment. On this count, we find substantial merit in the arguments of the ld. DR. 8. The second issue is whether the captive power plant is an integral part of a project for manufacture of fertiliser or not. The trade notice referred to by the Ld. advocate extended the benefit to such captive power plants of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is clear that such plants do not conform a part of the producing machinery. In other words, these are peripheral plants and do not contribute to manufacture of the goods in the case of fertilisers. On this count also, the impugned goods do not qualify for the benefit of assessment under the benefit. 10. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. does not apply to the facts of the case before us. In the cited case the petitioner was manufacturing diverse gases. The contract was registered. The petitioner could not achieve full licenced capacity because they were unable to import. The import of gas cylinders was made at a later date. Their proposal for importation of empty gas cylinder was approved by the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
