1998 (8) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. Shortly stating the facts of the case are as follows :- 2. The appellants herein imported certain goods. They filed an application for registration for contract under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 and claimed the benefit of tariff Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The original authority viz. Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Ld. Advocate Shri Ashok Sagar for the appellants submits that the Lower Appellate Authority should have gone into the merits, whether the original authority rightly or wrongly rejected the application for registration of the contract. He has merely gone on the fact that the goods have since been cleared. Ld. Advocate submits that the goods had to be cleared because they had to fulfil a certain c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... agree with the submissions of ld. Advocate Shri Ashok Sagar. The mere fact that the appellants have cleared the goods did not debar them from availing of the benefit of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 inasmuch as they had already applied for registration of the contract before the clearance of the goods as envisaged in the said Regulations read with tariff Heading 98.01. The question, therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X