I.J. Rao, Member (T)

1. These four appeals have common facts and arguments. We, therefore, heard them together and proceed to dispose of them by the common order.

2. For easy reference the particulars of the 4 appeals are given below:

3. The facts relevant to those matters are that that the appellants, a Public Limited Company, manufacture among other things, Photocopying Machines. They entered into an agreement with NASHUA Corporation of U.S. (hereinafter referred to as NASHUA). The DGTD registered them for the manufacture of 8000 Photocopying Machines and Developers. A licence dated 30th April 1982 for components (as per list attached) was issued to the appellants for a face value of Rs. 3.73 crores. On 31-3-1984 the appellants applied for issue of a fresh licence of a value of Rs. 2.08 crores which was equivalent to the unutilised portion of the earlier licence. They obtained a licence for Rs. eighty lakhs on 5-1-1985 and this licence permitted the goods to be imported as "As per list attached". Thereupon the appellants placed a purchase order on M/s. Bairo A.G. Zurich for the supply of components for the plain paper copier. The purchase order was for 73 Nos. of various compon