TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal agreed with their contention but they had expanded the business activities by indigenisation inasmuch as they had already purchased the developing and processing equipments in India, which were manufactured here and since the colour roll printer of the model is not manufactured in India, they had imported it from Japan. The Ld. Collector further held that the importer purchased the item from abroad as it had got a high speed of printing. He also held that the importer had fulfilled all the conditions of the project import and hence the item required to be assessed under project import under Tariff Heading 84.66 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The revenue in this appeal contend that only complete Mini Laboratory system which comprises of processing, developing and printing systems alone is eligible for concessional assessment under Heading 84.66 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is further contended that the benefit could be extended to a unit importing the lab. as a complete unit as printer alone cannot add to the output and it is the developer which determines the output. Therefore, the imported item by itself cannot add to its existing capacity unless a complete unit of Mini L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being entitled to the benefit. It is seen that in this citation the Bench did not address itself with regard to other conditions of the project import i.e. with regard to registration tinder the Factories Act. The Tribunal has gone into this question in the rulings rendered in Uma Arts Studio (supra) in para 6 at pages 117 *& 118 of E.L.T. which is reproduced herein below: * * * * The matter was again examined in the case of Sujatha International (supra). The findings given in paras 9 to 14 are reproduced herein below: * * * * Although, we are in agreement with the Collector's finding, in the light of the ruling rendered by Calcutta High Court in the case of Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. (supra) but still the other condi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne whether the respondent herein fulfills the two conditions referred to in Madras High Court's judgment in the case of Dass Lab, mentioned supra, at page 4 of the proposed order of the learned Brother. 9.2 Tariff Entry 84.66 by itself does not lay down the two conditions as have been referred to by Madras High Court, namely:- (i) Whether the importer is a unit registered either with the DGTD or with the State Director of Industries; and (ii) that the said unit qualifies as a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, For this purpose, I reproduce below Tariff Entry 84.66-: "Heading No. Description of the goods (I) (2) (i) All items of: (a) Machinery including prime movers, (b) Instruments, apparatus and appliances, (c) Control gear and transmission equipment, (d) Auxiliary equipment, as well as all components (whether finished or not) or raw materials for the manufacture of the aforesaid items and their components required for the initial setting up of a unit, or the substantial expansion of an existing unit, of a specified : (1) industrial plant, (2) irrigation project, (3) power project, (4) mining pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court in the case of Dass Lab laid down the aforesaid two conditions with reference to the aforesaid Policy of the Government of India; otherwise there is no requirement as such under Tariff Heading 84.66. Government cannot impose any restrictions through non-statutory instructions where the statutory provisions themselves do not envisage such condition or restriction. 11. I find that there are subsequent judgments of the Tribunal, namely:- (i) Collector of Customs v. Systems Data & Control P. Ltd. - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 275 (Tri.) = 1993 (44) ECR 321 (Tribunal). (ii) DPS India Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 837 (Tri.) = 1993 (45) ECR 120 (Tribunal). which are not dependent upon fulfilment of the aforesaid two conditions. In fact, such a question was never raised therein even though both the cases relate to Servicing Industries. 12. Apart from the foregoing, I also observe that no such ground has been taken by the appellant-Collector in his appeal memo. Only two grounds have been taken which are as follows:- (i) Only the complete mini lab systems which comprise of processing, developing and printing systems, is eligible for concessio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the Laboratory. The Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal on the ground that the remaining machinery had been purchased locally and the imported equipment along with the indigenous equipment fulfilled the conditions under the Heading 84.66. 17. I have heard both the sides. On behalf of the Department, the learned SDR has cited the following cases: (i) Uma Art Studio v. Collector of Customs - reported at 1989 (40) E.L.T. 115 (ii) Sujatha International v. CC - reported at 1989 (42) E.L.T. 413 18. The ratio of these two decisions is that the Unit seeking the benefit of Project Import should have been registered as a factory under the Factories' Act which condition according to the learned SDR has not been fulfilled. 19. Shri N.C. Sogani, learned Consultant has argued that the Heading 84.66 did not require that the unit should be registered as a factory under the Factories' Act. He cited the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. A.C. Customs - reported at 1992 (57) E.L.T., 563 (Cal.) and the case of Sh. Satish Kumar Goyal v. Collector of Customs - reported at 1985 (21) E.L.T. 873. 20. The ratio of the first decision (supra....