TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (4) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Appeals) the appellants have filed the present appeal before us. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and processing of cement in India. The appellants applied for and received the requisite import licence for import and clearance of all necessary equipment and machinery required for the purpose of construction and operation of the cement plant. The appellants were registered under No. S/5-379/83 by the Assistant Collector for availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty on the imported goods under `Project Imports' covered by Chapter heading 84.66. As consequence of power shortage and power cuts installment of captive power generator becam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by holding that registration under project import cannot be granted in respect of spares and replacement parts; that the import of the said replacement parts should have been treated separately and independently; that the DGTD had certified the replacement spares for duty of concession under project import; that the DGTD's certificate was binding on the Customs Authorities and they were obliged to follow the same; that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Chemicals - 1982 (10) E.L.T. (171) held that Customs Authorities are bound by the certificate issued by the DGTD under notification dated 1-3-1968 and cannot ignore or by-pass it on the ground that it was issued under mistake or misrepresentation; that admittedly the goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under a separate contract. Whether the contract could have been de-registered only by the authority which had registered it and not the Customs authorities requires to be considered." 4. The learned Counsel also cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Limited [1996 (62) ECR (62)]. In this case the Tribunal held that "We are of the view that for the purposes of assessment of duty by the Customs authorities what is material will be what the goods are and whether they are covered by the machinery contract and not whether they had misdeclared the capacity before other authorities. It is also significant that these machines have, however, been admitted to be legally imported. We have held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the goods under concessional rate of duty under Chapter heading 84.66(ii) of the Customs Tariff. He submits that this decision of the Tribunal is in respect of same two D.G. sets for which spare parts/replacement parts were imported by the appellants. He submits that since the Tribunal has already held that contract for registration as project import for the two D.G. sets has already been decided against the appellants therefore no case remains as replacement parts were imported for the two D.G.sets. The ld. SDR submits that for availing concessional rate of duty under chapter heading 84.66 registration of the contract is essential. Since in the instant case the contract was not registered in respect of two D.G. sets imported by the appe....