TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant's claim for allowing assessment under Heading 84.66 considering the goods imported as Project Import, was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the machines imported did not constitute an industrial plant or project and that they cannot be said to be meant for substantial expansion of existing project. The appellants, however, have pleaded that theirs being a manufacturing company having approved manufacturing programme from appropriate authority, the goods imported by them should enjoy the benefit of Project Import. In support of their contention the appellants have also referred to an importation by M/s. Gramophone Company of India where similar goods were allegedly allowed benefit of Project Import. The importati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for Project Import. The appellants also informed that they have not any project report and that they have applied for registration certificate and the same has not been received by them till 30th January, 1984. On scrutiny of the documents, it was found by the Revenue that the equipments to be imported did not make an industrial plant or a part of industrial plant or project within the scope of Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was alleged that these goods were not meant for the manufacture of any of the items specified under the Industries Development Regulation Act, 1951 (vide Order No. S-37-C Misc. 221/83-A(vi), dated 7-9-1983), in the circumstances it was alleged by the Revenue that the Labelling machine and the Cello wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Gramophone Company of India where similar goods were allowed under Project Import; that the Dy. Collector's decision was a prejudicial one inasmuch as he relied on an earlier order and did not apply his mind to the present imports nor has he given any reason for rejecting their claim; that the Collector (Appeals) also erred in holding that the machines imported could not be considered as machines required for manufacturing purpose and/or for expansion of the existing project. In support of his contention, the ld. consultant cited and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Super Recording Company Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 17, the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of D.P.S. India Pvt. Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn therein. Reiterating the findings of the lower authorities, the ld. JDR submitted that the appeal merits rejection straightaway. In support of his contention, the ld. DR cited and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gramophone Company India Ltd. reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 247. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides and considered them. The dispute before us in non-registration of a contract under the provisions of Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 read with Chapter Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. Whereas the important clause of the Regulations have already been cited and reproduced in the submissions of the Departmental Representative, however, for proper appreciation of the fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as required above. In this view of the matter, we hold that the items imported did not qualify for classification under Chapter Heading 84.66 of the 1st schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 7. We also observe that one of the requirements of the Project Imports Regulations, 1965 was that a clearance from the Director General of Technical Development was required to be obtained. From the evidence on record, we do not find that any such clearance was taken from the DGTD. However, a certificate from Development Commissioner (SSI Unit) was produced. But this certificate cannot be termed substantial compliance of the requirement of law. From the evidence on record, we also observe that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to sh....