TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (10) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 500 gas cylinders and filed a Bill of Entry No. I-980, dated 22.4.1977. The goods were classified under Tariff Heading 73.24 and Customs duty and additional duty was charged on these goods. In other words, the assessment was made on merits and not as a Project import. 3. The appellants later preferred a refund claim on the ground that they did not get the benefit of Project import in respect of consignment of 500 gas cylinders at the time of assessment, though the import licence was endorsed for Project Import. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim observing that the appellants did not register the purchase order with the Customs as Project Import as per rules before clearance of the goods. The purchase order was regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licence which had to be filed with Bill of Entry, clearly carried on endorsement for project import and as it was statutory necessity for the importers to file the licence along with the Bill of Entry, it must be considered that even in the absence of specific endorsement on the Bill of Entry, the appellants had made their intention known that they would be claiming the Project import benefit on the goods covered by Bill of Entry. He also explained that the appellants were situated at Jamshedpur whereas the imports were at Calcutta and they had to depend on the clearing agents. He attributed the lapse of not making endorsement on the Bill of Entry to the carelessness of the clearing agents. He repeated as all the circumstances indicate the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hmedabad itself shows that it is not applicable to this case as the facts are different. Same was the case for the orders cited by the Advocate, according to Shri Gopinath. Recalling the present facts, Shri Gopinath strongly relied on a recent judgment of the Tribunal wherein, according to him, a case of identical facts and circumstances was considered and a decision was taken in favour of the Revenue. The order Shri Gopinath was relying on was order No. 671/86-B2 in the matter of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Mihir Textiles Ltd., Bombay decided on 31.7.1986 (not published). 7. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The basic facts in the matter are clear enough and are undisputed. The goods were imported on 22.4.197....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by the proper officer of Customs permitting the clearance for home consumption, or deposit in a warehouse of items, components or raw materials". We, therefore, do not accept the arguments of Shri Agarwal in this regard. We are also not impressed by the plea that the clearing agents at Calcutta let them down. That is a matter between the importers and their clearing agents and no concession can be given on that account. We are also not willing to criticise the Customs for having allowed 1500 cylinders under concessional rates while objecting such concessional rate for the 500 cylinders in question. The Custom House allowed concessional clearance because at the time the second consignment, consisting of 1500 cylinders, arrived, the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adras v. Government of India [1981-E.L.T.-165 (Madras)]. This judgment was cited to plead for a liberal view to be taken in the present matter. In that case, the High Court was examining the implications of delayed submission of end-use certificates and of non-execution of a bond. In the present case, we have already noticed that the language of Heading 84.66 CTA is peremptory and that its provisions are mandatory. Therefore, there cannot be any question of relaxing the conditions. 13. The judgment in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Adrash Products Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad (1983-ECR-923-D) was .also cited before us. It was clearly held in this judgment that as the importers there (respondents in the case) did not register their cont....