9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Consideration of document as a valid certificate for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 317/87-Cus. Detailed Analysis: The appeal raised the issue of whether the document submitted by the appellants could be deemed a valid certificate of the Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) for availing customs duty exemption under Notification No. 317/87-Cus. The appellants imported a Die Casting Mould suitable for a specific part and sought a refund of the customs duty paid. The appellants did not possess the required certificate at the time of clearance but later submitted a document from the DGTD for reassessment and refund. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the claim, stating that post-assessment developments could not be considered. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) found that the appellants had initiated the process of obtaining the certificate before clearance, and the certificate was linked to their application. The Commissioner directed a re-examination of the refund claim based on the timing of the application for the certificate. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the refund claim, stating that the certificate did not specify the goods' use in the textile industry. The appellant contended that the certificate endorsed by the Industrial Adviser should be considered as the requisite certificate under the notification. The appellant argued that confusion arose as both the Textile Commissioner and the DGTD were monitoring the manufacturing program for the specific machine. The appellant provided correspondence to demonstrate their efforts to obtain the essentiality certificate from the appropriate authorities. The appellant asserted that the rejection of the refund claim was unjustified, and the impugned order should be set aside. After considering the arguments and examining the documents, the Tribunal concluded that the certificate submitted by the appellants was valid for granting duty concession under Notification No. 317/87. The Tribunal found that the Competent authority had approved the importation of the goods based on their essentiality, as evidenced by the documentation. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim was deemed improper, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to grant the refund if admissible under the law. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the validity of the certificate submitted by the appellants and the entitlement to duty concession under the relevant notification.
|
