Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Himson Textiles Engg. Industries P. ... vs Collector Of Customs on 5 April, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989(42)ELT124A(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President
1. The claim in this appeal is with reference to the duty concession contained in Customs Notification No. 179/80, dated 4-9-1980. It appears that 11 pieces of CAM imported by the appellants were not covered by the duty exemption certificate required to be produced before the Customs authorities in terms of the said notification. Because of this, the goods were charged to Customs duty without the benefit of the said notification. It is seen from the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector that the appellants had produced before him the certificate of consumption of the goods for the manufacture of crimping machine. In appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), by his impugned order dated 3-4-1984, did not accept the amended duty exemption certificate which covered the subject 11 pieces of CAM on the ground that the benefit of exemption was admissible only to the extent the certificate produced at the time of import and clearance of the goods covered the goods.
2. We have heard Sh. T.N. Desai, an officer of the appellant firm and Sh. L.C. Chakraborty, JDR, for the respondent.
3. Customs Notification No. 179/80 requires production of a certificate by the designated authority to the effect that the goods in question are or will be required for the purpose specified in the notification, namely, for the purpose of the initial setting up or assembly or manufacture of any article falling under one of the specified headings of the tariff schedule set out in the notification. It is clear from the impugned Order-in-Appeal that the amended duty exemption certificate covered the goods in question. The second requirement is that the importer shall bind himself to pay the differential duty on goods which are not proved to the satisfaction of the Collector to have been used for the specified purpose. It is seen from the Assistant Collector's order that the appellants did produce an end use certificate of consumption. The only point which, therefore, requires to be considered is whether the non-production of duty exemption certificate covering the subject goods at the time of import and clearance of the goods and their production at a later stage would disentitle the appellants from the benefit of the notification. We are of the view that when there has been substantial compliance with the conditions laid down in the notification, any procedural deficiency should not stand in the way of the relief which is otherwise admissible to the appellants. There is no dispute that the goods were covered by the amended duty exemption certificate. There is also no dispute that the goods have been used for the specified purpose. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the notification.
4. In the result, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants which shall be worked out by the Asstt. Collector.