1989 (9) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent. [Order per : Harish Chander, Member (J)]. - H.E.C. has filed the above captioned 28 appeals being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Calcutta. Since common issue is involved in the above 28 appeals, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The appellants have also filed an application under Rule 23 of the C.E.G.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1982 requesting for the grant of permission for the admission of the additional evidence at the appellate stage. Particulars of additional evidence filed by the appellants are reproduced below :- 1. As at Annexure A of application for additional evidence. 2. As at Annexure B of application for additional evidence. 3. Shri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bench admits these documents, the genuineness of these documents, and also the existence of the essentiality certificate at the time of importation of the goods has to be ascertained and the matter will have to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for ascertaining correctness of the stand taken by the appellants and he leaves it to the Bench. 5. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause for not submitting the documents at the earlier stage and we admit the additional evidence so mentioned above and place the same on record. Shri N.C. Sogani, the learned consultant argued on merits of the matters and stated that in te .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has to be extended, it has to be satisfied whether the essentiality certificate was in existence at the time of the importation of the goods. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Auto Tractors Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 494 had held that there was exemption under Notification No. 200/79-Cus., subject to the condition of producing a manufacturing programme as approved by the D.G.T.D., but a certificate from the D.G.T.D. regarding approved manufacturing programme produced to avail an exemption under Notification No. 179/80-Cus., - Subsequent refund claiming benefit of Notification No. 200/79-Cus., valid D.G.T.D. certificate produced for Notification No. 179/80 also valid for Notification No. 200/79-Cus. - Refe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X