(i) Can the benefit of the Notification be denied to the appellants on their admission of imported goods after being fully utilised for the specified fertilizer project, is then taken for use, if they are still available for other project?

(ii) Whether the expression 'specified' in the Tariff item 84.66 of CTA includes named project in a particular place or in several places?

2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants are engaged in the setting up of industrial units such as fertilizer plant; that M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ld. entered into a contract with their parent Co. M/s. Toyo Engineering Corporation, Japan for designing, engineering, fabricating and commissioning an Ammonia Storage Package Unit and Co-generation Plant; that their Parent Co., in turn, entered into a contract with them to carry out all the works, services, erection and commissioning on turn key basis; that they filed an application on 17.3.1986 with the Contract Registration Cell for benefit under the Project Import Scheme read with Notification No. 72/85-Cus, dated 17.3.85 in respect of goods sought to be imported. He, further, mentioned that the Appellants imported various special construction equipments, available at their overseas project at Kuwait, and filed eleven Bills of entry in March, 1986 for the clearance of goods which were cleared on payment of duty under protest; that the Assistant Collector, under Adjudication Order No. S/5-Misc.376/86CC dated 18.8.87, rejected their request for registration under Project Import Regulation on the ground that the imported goods are the property of the importer and even after execution and completion of the work, these would remain their property and the ownership of the imported goods would not pass on to the Project Authority and the goods could be used for other work elsewhere; that under these facts and circumstances, the imported goods would not qualify for classification under Heading 98.01 of C.T.A.; that on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) also rejected their appeal under the impugned order, holding that as per heading 98.01, items of machinery or component parts should go into the initial setting up of the unit and should not merely be used as an aid for such setting up of the unit or its substantial expansion, and as the appellants could utilise the machiery elsewhere in the setting up of another plant, the impugned goods could not be classified under Heading 98.01 of C.T.A. The learned Advocate also mentioned that the Bench had referred the matter to the Larger Bench in view of the decision in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board vs. CC, Bombay, 1987 (27) ELT 432 (T); that a Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal disallowed the benefit of Project Import vide Final Order No. C/64/93-B2[reported in 1994 (70) ELT 769 (T)] in which has been set aside by the Supreme Court by Order dated 27.10.1999 in Civil Appeal No. 4955 of 1994 as reported in 2000 (119) ELT 273 (SC) and restored the appeal for being heard and disposed of afresh by the Appellate Tribunal.

3. We heard Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate for the Appellants, and Shri Sanjay Srivastava, learned D.R. for the Revenue. Heading 98.01 of the C.T.A. reads as under :-

98.01 All items of machinery including prime movers, instruments, apparatus and appliances; control gear and transmission equipment, auxiliary and development purposes, testing and quality control), as well as all components (whether finished or not) or raw materials for the manufacture of the afores