9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essions under the Item in respect of spare-parts imported, by the lower authorities is correct. 2. Facts material for decision of this Appeal are that the appellants were granted import licence bearing No. I/CG/2039360/T/ER/78/H/80, dated 1st April, 1981 for the import of capital goods for setting up a Copper Foil Generating Plant and After Treatment Plant with accessories/spares under Project Import and the licence granted had the requisite recommendation for concessional rate of duty provided for project import under Heading 84.66 of the CTA 1975. It appears that the appellants entered into a contract with foreign supplier for import of the goods covered by the licence. It further appears that the appellants applied for registration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd accessories contained in 16 packages in respect of the plant. Bill of Entry No. 1560, dated 11-10-1982 was filed in respect of this consignment and classification claimed at concessional rate of duty under Heading 84.66(ii) on the ground that the goods merited project import concession. The applications dated 30-10-1982 and 5-11-1982 claiming re-registration of the contract and project import concession are not on record. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, by order dated 18-11-1982 held that main equipments had already been imported and cleared for home consumption and goods (sought to be cleared now) are only spares. He further held that since the main equipment had already been imported, request for re-registration of the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consignments cleared earlier alleging that the appellants had wrongly availed of concession under Notification Nos. 118/80-Cus., dated 19-6-1980 and 51/82-Cus., dated 28-2-1982. He challenged the issue of these less charge demands which are pending before the lower authorities. He submitted that the appellants had fulfilled the requirements for eligibility to concessional assessment under Heading 84.66(ii) in respect of these spares, and there being no legal bar to re-registration of the contract, the contract should be reregistered and benefit of concessional rate of duty for project import under Heading 84.66(ii) should be accorded to the appellants. 5. On behalf of the respondent Shri H.L. Verma, SDR, strongly defended the orders pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e main equipment for the Project had already been cleared and paid duty on merits. He referred to proviso to Heading 84.66(i) of CTA 1975 and stated that in view of this statutory provision the re-registration of the contract is not admissible. 9. We observe that the appellants with their eyes wide open and full understanding applied for de-registration of the contract when they felt that such de-registration was more beneficial to them in view of the exemption notifications applicable to the goods. Later on, they cannot be heard to say that in respect of spare-parts and accessories the contract which they had got de-registered should be re-registered. The appellants have failed to substantiate their contention by any documentary evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
