9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for benefit of exemption notifications. 2. Validity of certificates produced post-importation. 3. Procedural vs. substantive compliance with notification requirements. Summary: Issue 1: Eligibility for Benefit of Exemption Notifications The appellants, engaged in manufacturing "Pendulum Arms" for textile machinery, sought benefits under Notification No. 155/86-Cus., Notification No. 181/87-Cus., and Notification No. 179/86-Cus. The Assistant Collector rejected their claims due to provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry and non-production of the D.E.C. certificate and end-use certificate from the Textile Commissioner at the time of importation. The Collector upheld this decision, noting that the certificates were issued 3-4 years post-importation, thus failing to meet the notification requirements. Issue 2: Validity of Certificates Produced Post-Importation In Appeal No. C/2533/90-B2, the Collector rejected the claim as the certificate was not produced at the time of clearance. The Tribunal's judgment in BHEL's case was cited, emphasizing the need to apply for the certificate before importation and submit it within six months post-importation. The appellants failed to comply with this requirement. Similarly, in Appeal No. C/3391/90-B2, the claim was rejected due to the absence of a certificate linking the end-use of Pendulum Arms. Issue 3: Procedural vs. Substantive Compliance with Notification Requirements The central question was whether the appellants could claim the benefit of the notification by producing eligibility certificates post-importation. The appellants argued that previous Tribunal judgments allowed for the benefit if the end-use certificate was produced and other substantive requirements were met. The learned DR contended that applications filed post-importation do not meet the substantive requirements of the notifications, relying on the Webel Telematic Ltd. case. Judgment Analysis The Tribunal examined various precedents, including L M Ven Moppes Diamond Tools India Ltd., Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd., Birla Institute of Technology, and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., which supported the appellants' stance. However, the Tribunal also considered the Webel Telematic Ltd. case, which emphasized that applying for an eligibility certificate prior to importation is a substantive requirement. Separate Judgments Member (J) held that the appeals should be dismissed as the appellants failed to apply for the certificates prior to importation, thus not meeting the substantive requirements. Member (T) opined that the certificates are procedural and can be produced at any stage, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The Third Member agreed with Member (T), leading to a majority decision to remand the cases for fresh consideration in light of the certificates now produced. Majority Order In view of the majority opinion, the appeals are remanded for deciding the cases afresh in the light of the certificates now produced.
|
