ORDER

1. The appellants made an application for registration of the contract dated 25-6-1981 for import of one 200 metric tonnes self- propelled vehicle from Italy. They sought clearance of goods against import licence dated 18-6-1981. The vehicle was required for transporting 100 MVA transformers from railway station to the sites of 7 sub-stations set up by the appellants at various places in the States of Punjab and Haryana. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the application holding that the vehicle proposed to be imported was mainly required for transportation of transformers from the railway yards to the erection sites and had no relation to power generation or power project. He was, therefore, of the opinion that the import clearly fell outside the scope of project import. The appellants therefore had to clear the vehicle on payment of duty as assessed by the Customs House which duty was paid under protest. In appeal, the Collectors order was confirmed by the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector held that the vehicle was not meant for any single project and was intended to be used only to facilitate movement of transformers and hence could not be considered to be a part of the project. The Tribunal to which the matter was then carried also held that the vehicle was imported for movement of transformers and even if it was considered to be auxiliary equipment, it was not eligible for assessment as project import and accordingly dismissed the appeal. It is against this concurrent finding recorded by all the three authorities that the present appeal is filed.

2. The relevant part of Item 84.66 of the tariff entry was brought to our notice. It provides "that all items of 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 existing units, of a specified power project would be eligible for assessment as project import.

3. The very language of the entry would indicate that vehicles which are used in the shifting of transformers would not constitute an integral part of the power project and would, therefore, not attract the provision of Entry 84.66. We are, therefore, of the view that the authorities below have rightly construed the entry and we see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the authorities. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.