9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification 20/88 on the strength of DGTD certificate produced by them. The claim for refund was rejected on the ground that the appellants did not satisfy the conditions laid down under Notification 20/88 at the time of clearance as they did not produce the DGTD certificate at the time of clearance and they did not produce any evidence to show that the duty incidence had not been passed on to any other person as required under the rules. 2. The appeal against the Assistant Commissioner s order was rejected by the Collector of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin in the impugned order dated 21-10-1992 who held that the conditions of production of DGTD Certificate, giving undertaking regarding end-use of imported material and for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacture of transformers stands established and is also backed up by the DGTD Certificate. The ld. Counsel in this context cited and relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers v. Deputy Commissioner - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437. 4. Ld. D.R., Sh. J.P. Singh, pointed out that the Notification 20/88 is one which grants conditional exemption and prescribes three conditions. The Collector (Appeals) has correctly emphasised the requirement of fulfilment of all the three conditions at the time of clearance as being mandatory requirement for eligibility thereto. The exemption is both for basic and additional duty of Customs (CVD). Hence, the D.R. argued, the appellants do not have this option to pay basic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the context of Notification 20/88, was admittedly in existence at the time of import. The use of the material as an input for the manufacture of transformers would be further confirmed by the grant of Modvat Credit of the additional duty of Customs (CVD), by the Central Excise authorities which fact had been taken into consideration and indicated by the appellants in quantifying the refund in the application. When thus the main and substantial condition is shown to have been satisfied, it is not necessary to insist on compliance with the other conditions which are clearly of procedural nature. This is a well-settled position and in this context the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers v. Deputy Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive condition fundamental to the policy underlying the exemption is satisfied. The Supreme Court in the same decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals (supra), has referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Wood Papers - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (SC) = 1991 JT (1) 155 saying, When the question is whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clause, then it being in the nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject but once ambiguity or doubt about applicability or doubt about applicability is lifted and the subject falls in the notification, then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction......... Applying this criteri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
