9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order of the third respondent dated 4-1-1991 and to direct the third respondent to register the contract in question under the provisions of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 and consequently allow the clearance of the goods, extending the benefit of exemption Notification No. 315/83, dated 26-11-1983. 3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition may be stated as under : The petitioners proposed to set up a new unit for the manufacture of Pre-recorded Audio Cassettes. They have set out in the affidavit, the raw materials that go into the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment under Project Import Regulations, 1986. According to the Assistant Collector of Customs, the act of manufacturing Pre-recorded cassettes cannot be considered as an Industrial activity. The activity of sound duplication on tape to tape would amount to being characterised as a service industry. Therefore, according to the Assistant Collector, Section 3(1) of the Project Import Regulations quoted above does not get attracted. It is under these circumstances, the writ petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition for the relief already referred to by me. 4. In support of the petitioner's contention, Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners relies on a judgment of S. Ramalingam, J. in W.P. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case has given proper reasons for holding that the act of manufacture of pre-recorded cassettes cannot be considered as an industrial activity. Mr. Narasimhan, learned counsel contends that the equipments imported are only meant for sound duplication on tape to tape and would not be eligible for Project Import Benefit under Notification 315/83. As counsel appearing for the Revenue, I do not expect Mr. Narasimhan, to concede the issue. But, the judgments of this Court as well as the order of the Appellate Collector are clearly on point and cannot be ignored. In particular, S. Ramalingam, J. was concerned with the import of identical goods and identical point was raised before the learned Judge. I have no other option except to rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
