9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er law. There are two issues involved in these appeals. In 24 appeals, the refund application was rejected on time bar, in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, as the application had been processed beyond the period of six months. The delay ranges from 9 days to 1027 days. The duty had not been paid under protest neither the assessments were provisional. The second issue involved in the matter is the appellants prayer for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Project Imports Regulations which has been rejected on the ground that the Project imports had not been registered under Project Imports (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965 which was held as sine qua non for the grant of the benefit. 2. We have heard learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 9 (S.C.) has clearly held that the benefit of Project import is not available if the same is not registered with the Customs Authorities prior to the clearance of goods. He also refers to the judgment rendered in the case of Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) wherein the benefit of Notification was not extended when the terms of the Notification were not fulfilled. He also submits that in the appellants own case, as reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 551 (Tribunal), the South Regional Bench, Madras, held that registration of contract as a sine qua non if the same has not been registered, then the appellant is not entitled to concessional assessment under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the basic document for registration of Project import. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions and we find strong force in the submissions made by the learned SDR. The issue is no longer res integra. The Tribunal, in the appellants own case, has clearly laid down that the Registration of the Contract under the Project Imports (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965 is sine qua non to enable the appellant to get concessional assessment under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act. The matter was taken before the Larger Bench of 5 Members of the Tribunal in the case of Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (cited supra) wherein the Tribunal upheld the Revenue s contention for Registration of a Contract for grant of the benefit of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
