TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1975 at 40%. The appellants cleared the goods after paying provisional duty and filed a claim for refund of duty in terms of Customs Notification No. 40/78, as amended by Notification No. 109/78, at 25%. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the assessment was done under Project Import Regulations and having availed concessional assessment under those regulations the appellants were not eligible to avail of assessment under any other concessional notification. However, on appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras allowed the concession in terms of Customs Notification 40/78 on the ground that availing of Project Import Concessional assessment was not a bar to the item being assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , countered the statement of Shri Sunder Rajan by stating that the goods imported by the respondents were not parts required for commissioning of Hydraulic Extrusion Press but they were an entire press. He explained that for the convenience of packing and transport, presses of that size could not come in a fully assembled and ready for operation condition and they had necessarily to come in a knocked down condition. In support of his statement, he produced contract invoices, and drawings to show that all the parts required for the entire presses had been brought in four shipments. He further clarified that the four Bills of Entry under which the goods were imported taken together cover two whole machines namely, a Hydraulic Extrusion Press ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to the observations made by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Modi Rubber case - 1983 E.L.T. 24 (Del.) - to the effect that by adding to or by amending or by construction, deficiencies in the language cannot be made up by going to the object which the authority had in his mind, but the scope, effect/ and the operation of the notification has to be judged by the words employed in the exemption notification. He concluded his arguments by stressing that the respondents are entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 40/ 78-Cus in addition to the concession under the Project Import Regulations. 5. We have carefully followed the arguments of both the sides. We agree with the arguments put forward by Shri Rangaswamy on behalf of the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
