9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 347/86. 2. Requirement of specific recommendation in certificate from DGTD for duty exemption. Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 347/86 The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding exemption under Notification No. 347/86 for ink imported as raw material for electronics products. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim due to the absence of a necessary certificate from DGTD as specified in the Notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the imported ink fell under the Notification's ambit but found the certificate lacking a specific recommendation for exemption, leading to the appeal's rejection. Issue 2: Requirement of specific recommendation in certificate from DGTD for duty exemption The absence of a specific recommendation in the certificate from DGTD was a crucial point of contention. The appellants argued that prior to July 1989, the duty concession certificate was based on a proforma by DGTD, and they had followed the prescribed format. They highlighted that DGTD had amended the certificate post-July 1989 to include a specific sentence recommending the customs notification benefit to applicants. The Tribunal considered the wording of the Notification, emphasizing the need for a specific recommendation for exemption by DGTD. Despite the initial certificate's ambiguity, issued as per DGTD's proforma, the Tribunal opined that the appellants should not suffer due to this and adopted a broader interpretation of their eligibility for exemption. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the appellants were eligible for the exemption and entitled to the refund claimed. The decision underscored the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding the certificate issuance and the subsequent amendments made by DGTD, ultimately granting relief to the appellants in line with the law.
|
