9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basic version III (1 No.) with accessories, to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 317/87-Cus., dated 17-9-1987 (as amended). 2. M/s. BHEL imported the above Profile Projector and classified the same under Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff. At the time of the import they did not claim the benefit of the aforesaid exemption Notification No. 317/87-Cus. The goods were assessed to the customs duty and were cleared out of customs charge after payment of appropriate duty on 11-11-1991. Subsequently, during the month of May, 1992 they filed a refund claim which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the Importers were not in possession of the exemption certificate issued by the Directorate General of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en after the clearance of the goods was valid for claiming the refund of the duty already paid. He also pleaded that it was not a necessary condition in the notification that the certificate from DGTD should be produced at the time of the clearance of the goods. He referred to the exemption Notification No. 333/87-Cus. 6. In reply Shri S.N. Ojha, ld. JDR submitted that the appellants had applied to the DGTD much after the goods were assessed to duty and cleared out of customs charge. It was his plea that the Tribunal in a number of decisions has taken a view that if the importer had taken necessary steps for obtaining the requisite certificate from the prescribed authority before the import then the benefit of the exemption notification w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled for duty concession under notification CUS 317/87, dated 17-9-1987. The proforma contains all details and declarations sought for attestation by DGTD for availing duty benefits against the said notification. Hope you find the above in order and will process our case at the earliest. Thanking you. Your faithfully, for Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. 9. In the request made to the DGTD, attestation of the purchase order was sought. There was no mention in the application that the goods had already been imported and that they had already been cleared out of customs charge. It is also seen that the goods were shown classified under Chapters 84 and 85. In para `C of the certificate the goods had been mentioned by the DGTD and we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantive exemption available to the importers. We find that in a number of decisions the Tribunal has taken a view that if the importer has taken necessary steps towards obtaining requisite certificate from the prescribed authority then any delay on the part of such prescribed authority will not be fatal to the grant of objection. We find that in this case the appellants had taken no steps before the import or even after the import before the clearance of the goods out of customs charge. 12. Shri R. Subramaniam, ld. Counsel had referred to the Tribunal decision in the case of Oil India Limited v. CC, 1992 (57) E.L.T. 449 (Tribunal) in support of his contention that the essentiality certificate if produced subsequently was not fatal to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no provision in the amending notification that it would be applicable retrospectively, we hold that the amending notification was not applicable retrospectively. However, we observe that in such cases cited supra, this Tribunal had held that if the applicant had applied for obtaining such certificate then the date of application for obtaining such certificate may be relevant date for extending the benefit. Examined in this view of the matter, we find from the certificate that the application for the certificate was preferred by the appellants in the month of October, 1983 on different dates whereas the goods were cleared in September, 1983. Thus, even on this issue the eligibility certificate issued on 9-11-1983 cannot be deemed to cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the importers had made an application prior to the import then the benefit was not to be denied only on the ground that the requisite certificate could not be obtained prior to the import. Further, we find that consistently the Tribunal has been taking a view that the necessary steps should have been taken for obtaining the requisite certificate before the import. We find that in the present case it has not been done. 16. After giving careful consideration to the submissions made by both the sides and taking note of the case law cited both by the ld. Counsel and ld. DR we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by him. There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
