Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.78 seconds)Auto Tractors Limited, Pratapgarh vs Collector Of Customs (Appeal), Bombay on 19 January, 1989
Apex Court in this case has held that the condition of the notification is not that the manufacturing programme should be produced but that "the importer should produce evidence to the Assistant Collector of Customs at the time of clearance of the components or the goods that they have a programme duly approved by DGTD". Since it is common ground that the second set of certificates issued by the DGTD constitutes sufficient evidence that would entitle the appellant to the concession under Notification No. 200/79 even if they have not claimed it at the time of clearance of the goods. The Court further held that even ignoring the second set of certificates the production of original set of certificates at the time of clearance of the goods, when the appellant claimed benefit of Notification No. 179/80, was sufficient to entitle him to the benefit of Notification 200/79, claimed subsequently by the appellant. The grant of concession depends on a certificate that the assessee had approved manufacturing programme - which is there - and not the reference therein to the notifications that can be availed of by the assessee.
L.M. Ven Moppes Diamond Tools India ... vs Government Of India on 3 October, 1980
(4) 1981 (8) E.L.T. 165 (Mad.) - L.M. VEN Moppes Diamond Tools India Ltd. Madras v. Government of India
In this case Madras High Court has held that non-production of end use certificate even at the time of filing the refund application before the Assistant Collector of Customs does not disentitle the petitioner from claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 2/69. The production of such a certificate in itself does not create the right but the right to refund arises by reason of its user in the manufacture. Therefore, if the end use certificate was produced before the appellate or revisionary authority, it should have been taken into account for the purposes of granting refund. It further held in para 4 that the petitioner had paid the full amount of duty on the goods imported. There was thus no obligation on its part to execute the bond if he wants to claim a concessional rate of duty under the aforesaid notification. It is enough, if he produces certificate at the time of claiming excess refund of duty, that the raw material has been used in the manufacture of the products mentioned in the said notification.
Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare ... vs C.C.E. on 21 December, 1988
3.2. Lastly, he submits that even if it is assumed and held that there was a condition by implication to produce the certificate at the time of clearance, this is merely a procedural lapse beyond his control, as mentioned above. Substantive benefit of the notification should not be denied merely on procedural lapse. He relies for this purpose on 1989 (39) E.L.T. 658 (Tribunal) [Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. CCE Belgaum].
Heavy Engineering Corp. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 29 September, 1989
1.2. On appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the appellants herein did not succeed. The lower appellate authority has held that the notification envisages that the importer should furnish at the appropriate time the certificate referred to in para (b) of the proviso clause of the said notification. It also provides in clause (a) of the said proviso that the importer is bound to produce evidence to the Assistant Collector of Customs at the time of clearance of the said hospital equipments that the same is being imported in accordance with the conditions specified in that paragraph. The said authority has, therefore, held that the notification unquestionably indicates that the appellants are legally bound to submit essentiality certificate at the time of clearance of the impugned goods. While arriving at this finding, the lower appellate authority has relied upon Tribunal's judgment in the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation v. Collector of Customs 1990 (45) E.L.T. 131 which, according to the lower appellate authority, holds that essentiality certificate should actually be in existence at the time of importation. Appeal was, therefore, rejected. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.
1