Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Cus. vs Murugappa Chettiar Research Centre on 17 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(100)ELT439(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 23-5-1990 of Collector (Appeals).
2. The Respondents imported one Super Vacuum Packing machine and sought exemption under Notification No. 70/81. This exemption was denied to them by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the practice is to extend the benefit of Notification No. 70/81 only to the public funded Research Association and rules and regulations forwarded by the Respondent do not indicate in clear terms that they are not engaged in commercial activities. They are receiving fees and charges for the service rendered by them. He also held that goods under importation cannot be considered scientific and technical instrument apparatus. Collector (Appeals) held that the fees and charges are only by way of reimbursement on expenses incurred and set aside the impugned order of the Asstt. Collector holding also that no reasons at all are given by the Asstt. Collector in support of his contention nor is there any distinction between public funded Research Institutions and a private funded Research Institutions.
3. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents. Ld. DR reiterates the departmental arguments.
4. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records. Notification 70/81 exempts scientific and technical instruments imported by Research Institutions from whole of duty of customs subject to the condition :
(i) a duly authorised officer of the Directorate General of Technical Development certifies in each case that the goods in respect of which the exemption is claimed are such as are not manufactured in India and such certificate is produced at the time of clearance or within such period as the Assistant Collector of Customs, may, on sufficient cause being shown, allow in each case; and
(ii) the Research Institution shall furnish a certificate to the Assistant Collector of Customs from an officer not below the rank of an Under Secretary in the Ministry administratively concerned with the said institution to the effect that the import of the goods in respect of which the exemption is claimed is essential for research and the imported goods shall be used only for such purposes by the said institution and the said institution is not engaged in any commercial activity.
4.2. There is no dispute in regard to this certificate. Ordinarily it is not open to the Customs authorities to question the certificate issued by an officer notified in the Notification granting such exemption. Once the notified officer certifies that the institution is research institution and is not engaged in commercial activity that ought to have been enough to accept the claim. Merely because some fee is charged for the service rendered would not make any institution a commercial institution. Commercial activity has distinct connotation and reimbursement of expenses incurred regarding services would not come in the category of commercial activity, particularly in the absence of any evidence adduced by the Revenue. Assistant Collector has given no reasons whatsoever in support of his contention that the impugned goods cannot be considered as Scientific and Technical Instruments. The Certificate required under Notification No. 70/81 is to the effect that the import of goods in respect of which the exemption is claimed is essential for research. Certificate from D.G.T.D. requires them to certify that the goods as such has not manufactured in India. In the face of such certificate statement of Asstt. Collector that the impugned goods are not scientific and technical instrument without any reason in support of his statement is not sustainable. Again we do not find any justification in making distinction between Public Funded Research Institution and Private Research Institutions. The Notification does not create any such distinction nor it can be argued that the private Research Organisation is not a research organisation. In view of the reasons mentioned hereinbefore we do not find any merit in the Revenue Appeal and therefore we uphold the impugned order and reject the Revenue Appeal.