1997(01)LCX0046

IN THE CEGAT, COURT No. VI, NEW DELHI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

Versus

JOESPH MUTTATHOTTIL

Final Order No. C/101/97-B2, dated 13-1-1997 in Appeal No. C/2250/90-B2

Advocated By : Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, for the Appellant.

 Written Submission, for the Respondents.

[Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. - This Revenue appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 26-2-1990 of Collector (Appeals).

2. The Collector (Appeals) has accepted the plea of the respondents that benefit of Project Import is available to the respondents in case of Personal Computer and Photocopier.

3. Arguing for the Revenue, the learned DR submits that the personal computers and photocopiers cannot be considered as eligible items for initial setting up of plant and therefore, would not be eligible to benefit of Project Import.

4. The respondents in their written submissions have stated that they are running of printing industry and these items are directly used in the manufacture of final product i.e. printed material.

5. We have heard both sides. While considering whether the item is or is not eligible to Project Import, one has to take into consideration the nature of finished product. 9801 itself refers to not only the items of machinery but also apparatus, instruments and appliances. It is contended by the respondents that in the sophisticated printing industry run by them, the personal computer is used for composing the matter for printing; from the print a photocopy is taken on transparent paper which is used for making the offset plate which is used for regular printing. This process of printing is a modern technique, learnt by them during studies in West Germany. In view of the submissions made, we do not see how these items can be denied the benefit of Project Import, when these items are used in printing industry. Apart from this, we find that these goods had been included in the Project Report submitted to Customs at the time of Registration of Contract. Keeping in view the nature of industry and their use in printing, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Collector allowing these goods the benefit of Project Import. We therefore reject the Revenue appeal and uphold the impugned order. The cross objections are disposed of accordingly.

Equivalent 1997 (091) ELT 0108 (Tribunal)