9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant time. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty as assessed. Thereafter, they filed the refund claim claiming the benefit of Notification 179/80 dated 4-9-1980 under which the goods which are component parts of the machinery specified in the Notification and falling under Heading 87.01(1) of the Customs Tariff were exempted. 2. The benefit of notification is available subject to the condition that the authorities, mentioned in the subject part of the publication, are satisfied and certified in each case, the parts, in question, or will be required for the purpose, specified and recommended the grant of the exemption. 3. Secondly, the importer, in terms of this notification, is required to execute a bond to bind him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the certificate of the DGTD produced could not be co-related with the items in question. 6. While both the lower authorities held them ineligible for the benefit of notification for not having executed the end use bond. He pleaded that the Hon ble High Court of Madras in their judgment in the case of L.M. Ven Moppes Diamond Tools India Ltd., Madras v. Govt. of India -1981 (8) E.L.T. 165 (Madras) have held that in case in a notification execution of a end use bond was envisaged and the same was not executed, but full amount of duty was paid then in that case the refund claim of the appellants is not vitiated in the absence of that so long as the appellant produces evidence at the time of claiming the fund of excess duty that the item i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also pleaded that the tractors manufactured by them fall under Tariff Heading No. 87.01 (1). 10. We observe that the issues for consideration are - (i) whether benefit of notification can be given when no end use bond was executed at the time of clearance; (ii) whether the certificate produced after the clearance of the goods can be accepted in the facts and circumstances above; (iii) whether a certificate would be taken to cover the goods in question with reference to the details in the DGTD certificate. 11. We observe that the Hon ble High Court of Madras in a similar case have clearly held that a non-execution of the end use bond does not vitiate the claim required to be executed in terms of the notification. The Hon ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in respect of the goods covered by the importation and can be co-related the refusal to admit such a certificate for the purpose of notification would be penalising the appellants for no fault of theirs. It would have been different matter in case the certificate had been applied for after the importation. 16. Here, we observe the appellants have done what was required by them to do to get the certificate and right from the beginning it could, therefore, be seen that their case is that the importation was intended for the purpose for which the DGTD certificate was applied for. In case the DGTD certificate applied for was for the goods imported and the same was issued for that purpose, we see no reason why this certificate should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
