Accessories for spectrometers. - See under CHAPTER 90.

Air filters used in the flour milling plant are classifiable under Heading 98.06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under sub-heading 8421.39 ibid as the item does not stand excluded from the purview of Tariff Headings 98.01 and 98.06 by virtue of any Chapter Note under Chapter 98 nor under the Project Import Regulations. Benefit of Notification No. 69/87-C.E. allowable. - Collector v. ]ayakrishna Flour Mills (P) Ltd. -1998 (99) E.L.T. 128 (Tribunal).

Automatic camera with accessories imported for installing in importer's own factory along with printing machine. Registration as Project Import for camera only on basis of purchase order not a satisfactory fulfilment of the condition for concessional assessment. Existence of formal contract and registration thereof being essential, concessional assessment as Project Imports under Heading 84.66 (now 98.01) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 not available. -Collector v. Vijaywada Offset Printers -1995 (78) E.L.T. 516 (Tribunal).

Bellows made of Viton. - See under CHAPTER 98.

Bevel gear cutting tools are not independent tools but parts of machinery hence classifiable under Heading 98.06 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Collector v. Automotive Axles Limited -1998 (98) E.L.T .736 (Tribunal).

Bolts and Nuts are parts of general use. -Bolts and nuts are excluded from Chapter 98 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by virtue of Chapter Note 7(d) of Chapter 98 ibid. -Arvind Construction Co. Limited v. Collector -1997 (93) E.L.T. 115 (Tribunal).

Ceramic Fibre Blocks (Pyro Blocks) though assessable under Heading 98.06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, still eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 26/84-Cus., dated 22-2-1984 according to which such goods are classifiable under Heading 68.06. - Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd. v. Collector -1994 (69) E.L.T. 749 (Tribunal).

Chipper Knives are essential parts of chipper and specially made for chipper and not an independent tool for general purpose hence classifiable under Heading 98.06 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. -Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. v. Collector- 1993 {64) E.L.T. 137 (Tribunal).

Circular Saw blades. - See under CHAPTER 82.

Clutches - Electro magnetic clutches. - See under CHAPTER 85.

‘Commissioning of plant’ under Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff -Meaning and scope -Commissioning not means that all parts of unit fully established and capacity to meet targeted production achieved. - Orissa Air Products Ltd. v. Collector -1998 {103) E.L.T. 583 (Tribunal).

Components/Raw material for IBRD/IDA aided projects. -Replacements of goods used from stock entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 210/82-Cus., dated 10-9-1982. - East India Transformers & Switch gear (P) Ltd. v. Collector-1988 (35) E.L.T. 317 (Cal.).

Condensor - Bellows for Turbo Generator operated by steam are classifiable under Heading 98.06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as it stood at the relevant time since "Bellows" which are primarily meant to be expansible contrivances for blasting of air, cannot, by their very description, considered to be "flexible tubing connections" covered under Heading 83.07 ibid. - Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector - 1998 (103) E.L.T. 236 (Tribunal).

CRT display unit. - See under CHAPTER 85.

Dies and bolts imported under Heading 98.01 for project import eligible for Notification No. 288/88-Cus., since not being confined to any particular heading, applicable to Heading 98.01 for project import as well - Insistence to avail less beneficial Notification No. 132/85-Cus., by the importer misplaced as this Notification itself does not affect exemption granted under any other applicable Notification. - Enfield India Ltd. v. Collector - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 427 (Coll. Appl.).

Dies and spares for indigenisation of manufacture of Rotors and Stators used in manufacture of portable generator set -Benefit of project import not available since import is not for initial setting up of unit as importer already started the manufacture of portable generator set before applying for registration nor it was for substantial expansion of existing unit -Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Shriram Honda Power Equipment Ltd. v. Commissioner-1998 (104) E.L.T. 28 (Tribunal).

Electronic Industry Maintenance spares imported for substantial expansion of unit manufacturing electronic items are eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 315/83-Cus., dated 26-11-1983. - Collector v. Punsumi (I) Ltd. - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 492 (Tribunal).
Exemption - Special Exemption prevails over general exemption in accordance with the principle of Generalia Specialibus non derogant - Heading 84.66 (Now heading 98.01). - Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. v. Appraiser, Madras Customs -1988 (33) E.L.T. 22 (Mad.).

Filter bag spares and filter bags woven type glass. - See under CHAPTER 70.

Gold/Silver imported under Gold Import Scheme - Offence - Release of gold. - Authorities whether bound to release gold/silver when all three conditions contemplated under Gold to Import scheme are satisfied. If the persons have paid the duty by themselves from out of the foreign currency brought by them on their return to India or atleast on their showing that they obtained foreign currency from authorised persons then ultimately the goods are to be released. However it is otherwise in view of the illegal nature of the transaction, the authorities are bound to proceed for appropriate action depending upon the nature of offence. Notifications Nos. 172/94-Cus. and 177/92-Cus. - Abdul Rahim Nazeer v. U.O.I. - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 311 (Mad.).

Grinding set. - See under CHAPTER 84.

Honing machines - Components for honing machines being classifiable under sub-Heading 8466.93 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, they merit classification under Heading 98.06 and would be covered for benefit under Notification No. 156/86-Cus. - E.M.A. (India) Ltd. v. Collector - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 150 (Tribunal).

Insole for footwears. - Coated fabrics being 'insole' for use in leather footwear industry, benefit of exemption available under Notification No. 45/94-Cus., dated 1-3-1994 vide Serial No. 3 List A in the Table. - Mod Apparel Exports v. Collector - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 388 (Tribunal).

Minilab system is eligible for concessional rate of duty under Project Import Heading 84.66 (now 98.01) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Service Industry being included in scope and coverage of project import. - Expo Combines v. Collector - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 513 (Tribunal).

Nozzles are to be regarded as parts of machines although required to be replaced too often hence classifiable under Heading 98.06 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in terms of Note 1 to Chapter 98 ibid. - Ferro Alloys Corporation v. Collector - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 435 (Tribunal).

Oscilloscope used to measure electrical signals and to display them as a wave - Used to test insulators to ensure them safe from lightning strikes i.e. the voltage of lightning, around 2.5 kilovolts hence the oscilloscope perform in a circuit exceeding 400 volts. For performing this function it draws power from a circuit of which the voltage is less than 400 does not disqualify it for classification under the Heading 90.28(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Elpro Instrumentation Ltd. v. Collector - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 500 (Tribunal).

Polyester film metallising plant - spares. - See under CHAPTER 84.

Pressure indicator - Differential pressure indicator. - See under CHAPTER 90.

Progressive Steel Dies with design and development and spares thereof are classifiable under Chapter Heading 98.06 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and eligible for exemption if imported by actual user. - Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 691 (Tribunal).

Project Import. - (1) Benefit of Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 not applicable to photographic machinery imported by photographic studios, photographic film processing laboratories and photocopying studios after 3-4-1986 by virtue of definition of ‘industrial plant’ in Project Imports Regulations, 1986 - Goods to be assessed at higher rate under Heading 90.10 ibid. - Suresh Colour Labs. v. Union of India - 1993 (64) E.L.T. 399 (Mad.). See also 1995 (79) E.L.T. 386 (Mad.).

(2) Benefit of Project Import not available when the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Tariff Heading 84.66 of the erstwhile Customs Tariff for getting the Contract registered prior to the import not fulfilled. Such conditions to be complied with even if they are only directory. - Mihir Textiles Ltd. v. Collector - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.).

(3) Board competent to make regulations defining expressions used in Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Section 157 of Customs Act, 1962 - Regulation 3 of Project Import Regulations, 1986. - Subhash Photographics v. Union of India - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 270 (Bom.).

(4) Changes of goods before registration of contract not to debar appellant from availing benefit of Project Import Regulation, 1986 inasmuch as they had already applied for registration before effecting clearance. - Flance Proof Gears Ltd. v. Collector - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 652 (Tribunal).

(5) Coffee Industry, not being a Scheduled industry under Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951, Industrial Licence from DGTD not required before benefit of Tariff Heading 84.66 (now 98.01) is given - Coffee Board as a sponsoring authority having recommended both to ITC and Customs authorities for allowing import as project import for initial setting up a unit, benefit of project import allowed. - Collector v. Kodagu Coffee Growers Co-op. Society Ltd. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 300 (Tribunal).

(6) Commissioning of plant prior to import being only partial and assessment under project import not being finalised at the time of import, replacement of microprocessor to be allowed at project rates - Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Collector v. Auto Cast Ltd. - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 401 (Tribunal).

(7) Computer System imported not for substantial expansion of unit but for improving quality and facilitating production is not eligible for concessional rate of customs duty under Heading 84.66(I)(a) (now Heading 98.01) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Southern Magnetics (P) Ltd. v. Collector - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 458 (Tribunal).

(8) Contract not registered due to delay by Customs authorities and not due to negligence of importer but all connected provisions complied with - Goods cleared under protest on payment of assessed duty to avoid damage to machineries and heavy demurrage. Order passed by Assistant Collector after 16 months of application for registration as project import - Benefit of project import was held not deniable merely because goods were cleared before registration of contract. - DPS India (P) Ltd. v. Collector - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 837 (Tribunal).

(9) Contract registered after order was passed permitting clearance of imported goods for deposit in warehouse - Conditions of project import Heading 84.66 (now 98.01) not satisfied. - Kool Tin Printers v. Collector - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 584 (Tribunal).

(10) DA gas cylinders being part of initial setting up of undertaking for meeting requirements of licensed capacity, benefit of exemption as project import available. - Orissa Air Products Ltd. v. Collector - 1998 (103) E.L.T. 583 (Tribunal).

(11) Defining "industrial plant" so as to exclude service establishments like photographic studios from project import benefit. Note (2) to Chapter 98 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not amount to excessive delegation. Section 157 of Customs Act, 1962. - Subhash Photographics v. Union of India - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.).

(12) Project Import - Equipment to minimize transmission loss of electrical energy by eliminating faultry branches and ensuring continuity of power supply is not for initial set up of power object or for substantial expansion of existing unit hence registration not allowable under Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Karnataka Steel Electricity Board v. Collector - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 340 (Tribunal).

(13) Project import - Exemption under different Tariff Headings not claimable when item imported under project import Heading 84.66. Paper making machinery imported as per contract registered with the Customs Authorities under Tariff Item 84.66 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, enjoying benefit in payment of basic customs duty and additional duty. Having so obtained that benefit it was not open to the importer later on to claim that the machinery in question is covered by Tariff Item 84.31 ibid for receiving the benefit of total exemption from auxiliary duty. - Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. v. Appraiser - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.).

(14) "Film processor", that is, a single item imported and not a complete minilab system comprising of processor, developing, printing equipment. It was a case of substantial expansion of production of a unit and not for setting up of a new unit or substantial expansion of a unit. No formal contract registered separately for the imported item either. Project import benefit is not admissible. Heading 84.66 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Collector v. Pfoston Colour Processing Lab. - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 257 (Tribunal).

(15) Free replacement of component becomes part of original contract if warranty clause exist and so it is not necessary for separate registration of supply of free goods - Benefit of project import available in respect of free supplies also vide Clause 5 of the Project Import Regulation. - Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Collector - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 219 (Tribunal).

(16) Graphic art films of various sizes imported in small quantity for purpose of test-working of machinery to be considered as necessary as components for initial setting up of unit. Concessional rate of duty under Project Import available. - Orient Litho Press v. Collector - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 32 (Mad.).

(17) Horological machines eligible to the benefit of notification dated 28-2-1985 even if cleared under Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff since project import notifications clearly specifies that exemption under other notifications will not be effected by it and moreover the exemption notification dated 28-2-1985 did not specify the Heading for the goods exempted under it. - Abrol Watches Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.).

(18) Imported goods, contrary to declaration, were not used for substantial expansion of importer’s existing unit but transferred to another company for seeting up a new unit - Concessional rate of duty under Heading 84.66 (now 98.01) not admissible. - Jacsons Thevara v. Collector - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 343 (S.C.).

(19) 'Industrial Plant' - Common parlance meaning of the expression used in Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is not relevant in view of statutory definition provided in Project Import Regulations, 1986, in pursuance of specific power conferred on Board under Note 2 to Chapter 98. - Subhash Photographics v. Union of India - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 270 (Bom.).

(20) "Initial Setting Up" of a unit includes the setting up of a unit in stages for the first time. The phrase is not inconsistent with phased implementation. - Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. Assistant Collector - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 563 (Cal.).

(21) Machine imported viz. 'tape to tape sound transferring machine' transferring sound from tape to a pan cake not a 'service establishment' and not excluded from purview of the item 'industrial plant'. Benefit of assessment under Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 available. - Commissioner v. Master Recording Co. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 146 (Tribunal).

(22) Machinery imported for expansion of specified industrial plant manufacturing computer software falling under the heading 'Electronic components and equipments' - Concessional assessment as Project Import under Heading 84.66 (now Heading 98.01) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 allowed. - DPS India (P) Ltd. v. Collector - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 837 (Tribunal).

(23) Mandatory for Customs authorities to register the contract where so recommended and endorsed by DGTD and CCI & E-Heading 84.66 (now 98.01). - Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. Assistant Collector - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 563 (Cal.).

(24) Multilayer extruding machine is to be deemed as covered by Project Import under Heading 98.01 of the CT A, 1975 although assessed at concessional rate under Notification No. 125/86-Cus. in view of specific pro-visions under Notification No. 132/85-Cus. - Essential maintenance spares also covered by Heading 98.01. - Ecoplast (P) Ltd. v. Collector - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 578 (Tribunal).

(25) Object being to promote industrialisation, Heading 84.66 (now 98.01) is to be construed liberally. Even strictly construed, the heading includes setting up of a unit in stages for the first time. - Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. Assistant Collector - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 563 (Cal.).

(26) Personal computers and photocopiers being used in printing industry, eligible for the benefit of Project Import. Erstwhile Heading 84.66 and present Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Collector v. Joseph Muttathottil - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 108 (Tribunal).

(27) Photo finishing machinery imported for substantial expansion of unit at Goa for which contract registered but diverted to Bombay after clearance from Customs, benefit of concessional rate of duty under Heading 84.66 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 not available. - Photophone Ltd. v. Collector - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 596 (Tribunal).

(28) Registration of Contract applied for before clearance of goods - Four dryer inlet ring heaters imported as against two mentioned in B/E, packing list, import licence but value permitted in import license was not exceeded - Import being necessitated purely by design consideration and not by desire to import unauthorisedly, benefit of Heading 98.01 held available vide para 45 of Import Policy 1988-91. - Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Collector - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 355 (Tribunal).

(29) Registration once granted under Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 cannot be cancelled. - Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 538 (Ori.).

(30) Same goods can avail of more than one duty concession, if not specially barred - One under project imports and another under exemption Notification No. 40/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978. - Chowgule Matrix Hobs Ltd. v. Collector - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 736 (Tribunal). Goods in the nature of material handling equipment to facilitate work of erection, construction and maintenance not covered by expression 'auxiliary equipment'. Benefit of concessional duty under Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 not available. - Toyo Engineering India Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 769 (Tribunal).

(31) Sound Mixing Equipment and tape to tape sound transferring equipment imported for Audio Cassette production, a service activity not eligible for benefit of project import under Project Import Regulations Act, 1986. - Collector v. Stereophonic Sound Studio - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 106 (Tribunal).

(32) Project imports - Spares as imported originally assessed on merits under respective headings. Assessee entitled to claim assessment as project import under Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff when assessment is reopened. - Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Collector - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 171 (Tribunal).

(33) Unit manufacturing pre-recorded Cassettes by sound duplication on tape to tape is not a service industry but an 'industrial plant' within the meaning of Clause 3(a) of Project Import Regulations, 1986 - Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Super Recording Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of India - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 17 (Mad.).

(34) Vehicles used for shifting of transformers do not constitute an integral part of the power projects, hence not eligible for benefit of project import under Heading 84.66 of erstwhile Customs Tariff (now Heading 98.01). - Punjab State Electricity Board v. Collector - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.).

(35) Wang Computer System imported for development of computer software eligible for project import concession. - Collector v. Systems Data & Control (P) Ltd. - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 275 (Tribunal).

(36) 'Wheel sets' used in manufacture of railway wagons which in turn used for transporting goods from port to factory site. 'Wheel sets' not to be considered as auxiliary equipment needed for initial setting up of project. Benefit of concessional rate of duty under Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 not available. - Texmaco Limited v. Collector - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 463 (Tribunal).

Roller Gear Index Drive being parts of general application are not classifiable under Heading 98.06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 but under Heading 84.83 ibid and not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. - Union Carbide India Limited v. Collector - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 118 (Tribunal).

Seal - Oil seal - Spare parts of oil seal. - See under CHAPTER 84.

Seal Rings. - See under CHAPTER 84.

Shaft Sleeves. - See under CHAPTER 68.

Shuttles used in looms. - See under CHAPTER 84.

Solid Industrial Tyres for forklift truck. - See under CHAPTER 40.

Springs designed and manufactured to suit particular type of valve. - See under CHAPTER 84.

Tachometers. - See under CHAPTER 90.

Twin Lobe Compressor (Rotary Compressor) with accessories is eligible for assessment under Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff. Project Import benefit not deniable on the ground that the goods in question were not complete machinery but only components of the machinery. As per Rule (2) of the Interpretation Rules unfinished form can be taken to be a complete and finished article. - Rathi International Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector - 1996 (85) E.L.T. 301 (Tribunal).

Valves, Switches and Shafts. - See under CHAPTER 84.

Worm Wheels are parts of general application and not classifiable under Heading 98.06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 but under Heading 84.43 ibid and not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. in view of specific provision made in Notification No. 132/87-Cus. - Southern Petrochemical Ind. Corpn. Ltd. v. Collector - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 530 (Tribunal).