D.C. Mandal, Member (T)

1. In this appeal, which was originally filed before the Government of India as a revision application, the appellants have prayed that the impugned order dated 3-4-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay may be set aside and the Assistant Collector of Customs may be directed to register the contract of the appellants under the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 so that the refund of Customs duty already paid in excess can be obtained.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants made an application for registration of their contract No. 15617/PO-411/Spec-973/ DD-166 S-IV dated 25-6-1981 entered into with M/s. Cometto Industraile, Italy through M/s. Salgaocar Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for Import of one 200 M/Ton Self-propelled vehicle model Cometto MT-100 etc. They sought clearance of the goods against import licence No. 20394 38 dated 18-6-1981, duly endorsed with "Project Imports" under Heading No. 84.66 of C.T.A., 1975. The goods were required for transporting 100 MVA transformers from Railway Station to the sites of Seven sub-stations which were being set up by the appellants at various places of Punjab and Haryana States under various transmission projects. The application was rejected by the Assist ant Collector of Customs with the following observations :

"The goods imported is mainly used as material handling equipment, for transportation of local goods towards the erection site and no power generation or any project is involved in the instant case. The import clearly falls outside the scope of Project Import. Therefore, the question of Registration of the contract under Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 does not arise."

The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty as assessed by the Custom House under protest and then claimed refund of the duty, which, according to them, was paid in excess. The appellants also filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector, but the same was rejected by the Appellate Collector of Customs. While rejecting the appeal he observed as follows : -

"The equipment is not meant for any single project. The vehicle is used to facilitate movement of lifting up heavy local plants and cannot be considered as "Project" by themselves. The order of the Assistant Collector is maintainable."

The present appeal is against that order of the Appellate Collector.

3. We have heard Shri Sorabjee, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Shri Gopinath, learned Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent.

4. The learned Advocate has argued that the appellants are a statutory Corporation appearing in Rule 3(2) of the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965. According to the proviso to Rule (4) of these Regulations, the application of the appellants was to be accompanied by the list of items, for which clearance of Director General of Technical Development had been taken and a certificate from the Head of the Project Authority to the effect that the items to be imported are covered by the rules. The appellants were granted an import licence No. 2039138 dated 18-6-1981. The goods covered by the import licence were described in details in the list enclosed to the licence and the list " contained the endorsement of "Project Import". Director General of Technical Development's clearance was obtained as stated in letter No. P/Pb-944/B/81-FE (G/A/C/XX/79)-17/5 dated 15-5-1981 from the Government of India, Ministry of Energy (Department of Power) to the Chief Engineer/Transmission systems, Design Directorate Sub-stations, Punjab State Electricity Board and copy endorsed to the CC1 E, CG-11 Section, New Delhi, etc. In his letter No. 196/21/80-FED-1 dated 15-6-1981, the Deputy Chief Engineer, Central Electricity Authority, Government of India requested the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports Exports, CG- 11 Section, New Delhi for embossing the Import li