2002 (7) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hapter 85.34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant applied for registration of import of capital goods under Project Import Regulations, 1986 on 16-9-93. They enclosed a certificate dated 19-7-93 issued by Government of India, Department of Electronics which attested 26 items of capital goods bearing a total value of Rs. 15.50 crores. The said project was registered by the Customs authorities. 3. The appellant cleared one complete set alkaline regeneration module and copper recovery system worth Rs. 46,76,194/ under project imports vide Bill of Entry No. 823, dt. 28-9-93. The balance 25 items of capital goods were cleared under Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG) in terms of Customs Notification 160/92, dt. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his case is whether the appellant having taken the benefit of Project Imports for one machine under the Project Import Regulations, 1986, they could take the benefit of concessional duty clearance under EPCG vide Notification No. 160/92. He said that an assessee can avail the benefit of two notifications simultaneously and the issue involved is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ecoplast (P) Ltd. v. CC reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 578. In that case, in the similar facts and circumstances, it was held that machines imported under Project Import Regulations will be deemed to be covered by Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, although assessed at concessional rate under different notifications. H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch are as under: "4.      I have carefully examined the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal and the submissions made at the time of personal hearing held on 29-7-98. 5.        The short point to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefits of Notification 315/83, dated 26-11-83 is of the fact that they did not import all the machines engaged in their projects imports contract. The appellants argue that the machine constitutes a unit of the plant and the unit itself has undergone substantial expansion consequent upon the import of the said machine. I am unable to agree with this argument of the appellant. Unit has been defined in the Pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cess production has certainly not been achieved with the help of one single machine imported claiming project imports benefits. Besides the fact remains that the appellant has to meet the conditions specified under the EPCG scheme, which is wholly independent of the Project Imports Contract". He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Electronics reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 267. 6. We have carefully considered the matter. It is well settled position now that the assessee can choose any one of the notifications that benefits him. He can also claim the benefit of two notifications simultaneously as per the wording of the respective notifications. In the case of Mahaveer Aluminium Ltd. (supra) Supreme ....