Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Birla Institute Of Technology vs Collector Of Customs on 11 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991(34)ECC101, 1991ECR262(TRI.-DELHI), 1991(56)ELT753(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.K. Kapoor, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether in cases in which the prescribed 'Not Manufactured in India' certificate from the DGTD or the Duty Exemption Certificate from the concerned Ministry is not available at the time of import, the exemption under Notification No. 70-Cus., dated 26-3-1981 in respect of scientific instruments, apparatus etc. imported by approved educational/research institution would be admissible only if the application for the relevant certificate is filed before the concerned authorities prior to the importation of the goods.
2. On behalf of the appellants we heard the learned Advocate Shri K. K. Banerjee. He stated that his clients had filed a Bill of Entry on 24-9-1983 for the clearance of a Multiuser Development computer system including Text Processing Package consisting of a manual and floppy disc recorder. Prior to the importation of the goods, on 9-8-1983 they applied to D.G.T.D. for a 'Not Manufactured in India' Certificate with the intention of claiming exemption from payment of customs duty on the Multiuser System under Notification No. 70-Customs, dated 26-3-1981. He added that on 3-9-1983 the D.G.T.D. issued the N.M.I. Certificate, deleting two items, namely, Text Processing Package and Manuals from the list of items in respect of which N.M.I. Certificate was sought. He pointed out that in absence of the required N. M. I. Certificate the appellants cleared the Text Processing Package on payment of duty amounting to Rs. 18,807.43. Thereafter in their letter dated 8-10-1983 his clients requested the DGTD to reconsider the decision in respect of the Text Processing Package on the grounds that it was an essential part of Multiuser Development System and after the exchange of some correspondence, on 1-11-1983 the DGTD issued the N.M.I. Certificate for the Text Processing Package. He stated that his client preferred a claim for the refund of duty paid on the Text Processing Package on the strength of the N.M.I. Certificate and a duty exemption certificate issued by the Ministry of Education but the Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the grounds that the item in question was neither covered by the requisite N.M.I. Certificate on the date of importation nor was any application for the certificate pending with the concerned authority on that date. Shri Banerjee contended that the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) overlooked the fact that their application dated 17-10-1988 for issuance of N.M.I. Certificate for the Text Processing Package was in continuation of the application filed on 8-10-1983 for the entire system including the Text Processing Package prior to its importation into the country. He argued that even if it is assumed that the application for the N.M.I. Certificate was filed after the importation of the disputed item, the exemption under Notification No. 70-Cus., dated 26-3-1981 was admissible to goods in question. In support of argument he referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1983 (14) ELT 2019.
4. On behalf of the Department, the learned JDR Shri M. K. Sohal conceded that the matter was covered by the Tribunal's decision quoted by Shri Banerjee.
5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the records of the case. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1983 (14) ELT 2019 had examined the question whether exemption under Notification No. 211-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 was admissible in respect of certain scientific equipment when the N.M.I. Certificate was not available at the time of impor- tation of the goods and even the application for the certificate was filed after the shipment of the goods. The relevant extract from the Tribunal's decision is reproduced below:
"The only ground on which the appellants' claim for refund had been rejected is that they had not applied for N.M.I. Certificate before the shipment of the goods, otherwise there is no dispute that the appellants and the goods are entitled to benefit of Notification in question. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels that a highly technical view in the matter should not be taken as the appellants though later have fulfilled all the conditions of the Notification. In this view of the matter, the appellants' appeal deserves to be allowed."
6. Since the facts in this case are similar, relying upon the view taken by the Tribunal in the decision quoted above, we hold that the NMI Certificate issued to the appellants after the clearance of the goods was acceptable for the purpose of exemption, under Notification No. 70-Cus., dated 26-3-1981.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The orders of the lower authorities are set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.