9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is whether the document submitted by the appellants could be considered as a valid certificate of the DGTD for availing benefit of customs duty exemption under Notification No. 317/87-Cus., dated 17-9-1987 in respect of the imported Die Cast Mould suitable for part No. FT-005-563-0 and the appellants are eligible for refund of Rs. 1,65,995/- paid by them at the time of its clearance from Customs. 3. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported a consignment consisting of two items, viz., (i) one set Die Casting Mould suitable for Part No. FT-005-563-0, and (ii) one set Mould suitable for Part No. FT-004-024-0 vide Bill of Entry No. AI-112, dated 6-10-1990. The goods were assessed under Customs tariff sub-heading 8480.49 read wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of the customs duty. Their request was rejected by the Assistant Collector on 9-1-1995 with the observation : I am not in a position to take cognisance of the documents/ developments relating to the post-assessment period and hence, I have no other option but to reject the claim because the claim is arising out of assessment which was in order at the relevant time. The appeal filed against the said order was disposed of by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on 4-12-1996 with the following observations :- Regarding the first item as mentioned above I find that the benefit in terms of Notification No. 317/87 was conditional to the extent that DGTD s certificate regarding use of the item in specific industry was required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Customs vide his Order-in-Original, dated 7-12-1998 rejected the appellant s claim for refund on the ground that the certificate submitted by the appellant does not certify that the impugned goods are for the use in the textile industry. An appeal filed against the said order culminated in issuance of the impugned order wherein the appellant s appeal was rejected. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Shri D.L. Basu Roy, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants, submits that the authorities below erred in rejecting the refund claim. He argues that the certificate clearly shows that the Textile Commissioner s Office had recommended the essentiality of import to the DGTD (since they were not eligible to issue Esse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide their letter, dated 14-8-1990 to Dr. D.R. Chawla, the then Industrial Adviser. These facts, according to the ld. Consultant, establish beyond doubt that the essentiality certificate obtained was in respect of the impugned goods and the certificate was duly signed by the Competent authority. He, therefore, argues that the rejection of the appellant s claim for refund was not in order and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside with consequential relief to the appellants. 5. Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterated the reasoning contained in the order impugned. 6. We have heard both sides and also perused the documents available on record and more particularly the letter, dated 14-8-1990 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
