2002 (7) TMI 314 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants appeal for multiple benefits under Project Import Regulations, emphasizing assessee's choice.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant could benefit from multiple notifications simultaneously under the Project Import Regulations. ... Project import benefit on item can be claimed along with EPCG benefit on remaining items Issues:1. Interpretation of Project Import Regulations, 1986.2. Applicability of Notification No. 160/92 and Notification No. 315/83.3. Benefit of concessional duty under EPCG Scheme.4. Compliance with Project Import Scheme conditions.5. Legal precedent and interpretation of simultaneous benefit under multiple notifications.Interpretation of Project Import Regulations, 1986:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Project Import Regulations, 1986. The appellant, a manufacturer of printed circuit boards, applied for registration of import of capital goods under this scheme. The Customs authorities raised concerns about the eligibility of the appellant to claim the benefits under the Project Import Scheme due to the clearance of goods under different notifications. The Assistant Commissioner denied the benefit, leading to the appeal.Applicability of Notification No. 160/92 and Notification No. 315/83:The issue revolved around the clearance of capital goods under Notification No. 160/92 and Notification No. 315/83. The show cause notice alleged that the benefit of concessional duty under the Project Import Scheme was not allowable as only one item was cleared under Notification 315/83, while the rest were cleared under the EPCG Scheme. The appellant contended that there was no bar in availing the benefits of both notifications simultaneously, citing previous Tribunal decisions and definitions under the Project Import Regulations.Benefit of concessional duty under EPCG Scheme:The appellant argued that they should be entitled to the benefit of concessional duty clearance under the EPCG Scheme vide Notification No. 160/92, despite having already availed benefits under the Project Import Regulations. The appellant's representative highlighted previous Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court rulings supporting the simultaneous benefit under different notifications for imported machinery.Compliance with Project Import Scheme conditions:The Commissioner emphasized the necessity of complying with the conditions specified under the Project Import Regulations to claim the concession rate of import duty. The Commissioner rejected the appellant's argument that the imported machine constituted a unit of the plant for substantial expansion, stating that the entire goods covered under the contract should have been imported to avail of the project import benefit.Legal precedent and interpretation of simultaneous benefit under multiple notifications:The Tribunal considered various legal precedents and rulings, including decisions in cases such as Mahaveer Aluminium Ltd. and Ecoplast (P) Ltd. The Tribunal held that the appellant could choose to benefit from multiple notifications simultaneously, as supported by the wording of the respective notifications and previous Tribunal decisions upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the established principle that the assessee can select the notification that benefits them the most.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the various issues involved in the appeal, focusing on the interpretation of regulations, applicability of notifications, compliance with scheme conditions, and legal precedent supporting the simultaneous benefit under multiple notifications.