1986 (9) TMI 204 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of concessional assessment under Notification No. 35/79-Cus.
2. Proper justification for imported goods being component parts of compressors.
3. Submission of duty exemption certificate at the time of assessment.
4. Requirement of certificates under Notification No. 35/79-Cus.
5. Timeliness in obtaining and submitting necessary certificates for concessional assessment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal sought concessional assessment under Notification No. 35/79-Cus. for Relief Valves imported for compressor assembly. Customs House assessed the goods differently, leading to the appeal for re-assessment under the mentioned Notification.

2. The appellants argued that the imported safety relief valves were integral to compressors, supported by the end-use affidavit and duty exemption certificate. The Appellate Collector rejected the claim, deeming the valves as inter-connecting pipe fittings without direct association with compressors. The Tribunal found the appellants' justification valid based on the valves' function and their placement in the assembly process.

3. The issue of submitting the duty exemption certificate at the time of assessment was raised. The General Manager's certificate, a requirement for concessional assessment, was dated after the assessment date. This discrepancy led to a lack of fulfillment of the Notification's conditions, as the certificate should have been available during assessment.

4. The Tribunal highlighted the dual requirements under Notification No. 35/79-Cus.: a certificate from the General Manager endorsing the parts' necessity for assembly, and an end-use certificate. While the end-use certificate could be post-assessment, the General Manager's certificate was mandatory during assessment, which the appellants failed to provide timely.

5. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely compliance with statutory requirements for concessional assessment. The delay in obtaining and submitting the General Manager's certificate, coupled with insufficient justification for the delay, indicated a lack of diligence on the appellants' part. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Custom House's assessment, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit.