9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order regarding benefit of Notification 51/96-Cus. dated 23-7-96 for imported goods - Certification requirement by Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research - Discrepancy between Chief Chemist's opinion and officer's certification - Interpretation of Notification language. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai revolves around the benefit of Notification 51/96-Cus. dated 23-7-96 for goods imported by the respondents, specifically Water Cooled Screw Chiller. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the respondents, setting aside duty demands imposed by the Dy. Commissioner who contended that the benefit under the notification was not applicable to the imported goods. Upon review of the records, it was noted that the notification required certification by an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. This certification was to confirm that the import was essential for a research program, the importers were not engaged in commercial activities, and the goods were solely for research purposes such as scientific equipment and apparatus. In the present case, the necessary certificate had been issued as per the notification's requirements. However, a discrepancy arose when the Revenue consulted the Chief Chemist, who expressed an opinion that the imported goods did not meet the criteria of scientific and technical instruments outlined in the notification. Despite this, the Tribunal emphasized that the language of the Notification was clear in specifying the requirement of certification by the designated officer. Given that the officer had issued the certificate confirming the goods' research purpose, the Tribunal concluded that the certificate held precedence over the Chief Chemist's opinion. In light of the above interpretation, the Tribunal found no justification to overturn the Commissioner's order, thereby upholding the decision and dismissing the appeal brought by the Revenue. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the specific requirements outlined in notifications and giving due weight to the certifications provided by designated authorities in such cases.
|
