S.D. Jha, Member (J)

1. The two questions arising for decision in this Appeal to the Tribunal are whether the rejection of the appellants' prayer for re-registration of contract to enable the appellants to avail of concessional rate of duty under, Project Import Regulations Tariff Heading 84.66(ii) of C.T.A. was correct or otherwise and whether the denial of concessions under the Item in respect of spare-parts imported, by the lower authorities is correct.

2. Facts material for decision of this Appeal are that the appellants were granted import licence bearing No. 1/CG/2039360/T/ER/78/H/80, dated 1st April, 1981 for the import of capital goods for setting up a Copper Foil Generating Plant and After Treatment Plant with accessories/spares under Project Import and the licence granted had the requisite recommendation for concessional rate of duty provided for project import under Heading 84.66 of the CTA 1975. It appears that the appellants entered into a contract with foreign supplier for import of the goods covered by the licence. It further appears that the appellants applied for registration of the contract for project import concession under Heading 84.66 of CTA 1975 and this was registered by the Bombay Custom House vide Customs File No. S/5-40/82, dated 10-2-82. On the strength of this registration the appellants availed of concession in respect of some consignments. In the meanwhile, Customs Notification No. 51/82 had been issued by Govt. of India. The goods being imported by the appellants were eligible to concession under the notification and the duty payable under the notification was less than that payable under Heading 84.66. The appellants then on March 30, 1982 (pp. 65-67 of the Paper Book) made an application to the Assistant Collector of Customs, 'K' Group, Project Cell, Bombay, requesting for de-registration of the entire project contract and allowing them to clear all the machineries on merit taking benefit of prevalent notifications as applicable. The application reiterated that project endorsement was a concession and could not be considered as a penalty for registering a contract for a new industry. The Assistant Collector of Customs by letter dated 12th May, 1982 addressed to the appellants accepted the appellants' request contained in letter dated 30-3-82 and de-registered the entire contract and the appellants were told that they could clear the consignment after paying the duty on merits and concession under Heading 84.66 of CTA 1975 would not thereafter be available.

3. In the meanwhile the appellants received a consignment of spares and accessories contained in 16 packages in respect of the plant. Bill of Entry No. 1560, dated 11-10-82 was filed in respect of this consignment and classification claimed at concessional rate of duty under Heading 84.66(ii) on, the ground that the goods merited project import concession. The applications dated 30-10-82 and 5-11-82 claiming re-registration of the contract and project import concession are not on record. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, by order dated 18-11-82 held that main equipments had already been imported and cleared for home consumption and goods (sought to be cleared now) are only spares. He further held that since the main equipment had already been imported, request for re-registration of the contract cannot be acceded to and he rejected the same. Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, in appeal after referring to the relevant provisions held that re-registration of contract was not admissible. He further held that as per mandatory provision contained in Tariff Heading 84.66(ii) and clear stipulations therein, benefit of concessional rate of duty under the Heading could not be accorded to the appellants in respect of consignment of spares. Aggrieved, appellants have filed this appeal to the Tribunal.

4. At the hearing of the appeal Shri S.D. Nankani, Advocate, submitted that legally there was no bar in a party availing project import c