1989 (1) TMI 125 - SC - Customs

Whether the Tribunal has erred in denying the appellant the benefit of the Notification No. 200 of 1979? Held that - There is therefore no doubt that the assessee had produced evidence, in the form of the said certificate, of the fact that the appellant had an approved industrial programme. This was the only requirement of the notification and this requirement has, in our opinion, been complied with. The further words in the first set of certificates that the assessee was eligible for the concession under 1980 notification were mere surplusage. The omission of the assessee to request the DGTD to refer to the assessee s entitlement under the 1979 notification or the omission of the DGTD to refer to the assessee s entitlement under the 1979 notification cannot take away the assessee s rights. The grant of concession depends on a certificate that the assessee had an approved manufacturing programme - which is there - and not the reference therein to the notifications that can be availed of by the assessee. We are therefore of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal should be set aside and that the assessee should be held entitled, in respect of the three consignments referred to earlier, to the concession available under Notification No. 200 of 79. We direct accordingly. The appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of conditions for customs duty concessions under two notifications.
2. Rejection of refund application by Customs authorities.
3. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 200 of 1979 by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant, a company manufacturing tractors, importing components under two notifications granting customs duty concessions. Notification No. 200/79 exempted components for heavy commercial vehicles or tractors from excess customs duty, subject to specified conditions. Notification No. 179/80 provided exemptions for parts of articles, including tractors, subject to recommendations from authorities like the DGTD. The appellant initially cleared goods under the latter notification but later sought refunds based on entitlement under the former notification, supported by amended certificates from the DGTD.

2. The Customs authorities rejected the refund applications, citing the appellant's failure to produce "end-use" certificates. Despite appeals to higher authorities, including the Tribunal, the appellant's claims were dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of fulfilling conditions under Notification No. 200/79, including presenting an approved manufacturing program at the time of clearance. The Tribunal found the appellant lacking in meeting this requirement, leading to the denial of the concession.

3. Upon review by the Supreme Court, it was determined that the Tribunal misinterpreted the conditions of Notification No. 200/79. The Court clarified that the requirement was to provide evidence of an approved industrial program, not necessarily at the time of clearance. The Court highlighted that the original certificates from the DGTD sufficed as evidence of compliance with the notification's terms. The Court emphasized that the appellant's rights were not diminished by the lack of specific references to the 1979 notification in the certificates. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, granting the appellant the concession under Notification No. 200 of 1979 for the imported consignments.