9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sented the Respondent Commissioner. 2. The appellants had imported two consignments of electronic parts for use in the manufacture of music systems and radio cassette recorders in their factory as per Bills of Entry Nos. 9403, dated 19-3-1994 and 12129, dated 13-4-1993. Some of the items imported correspond, according to the appellants, to the items listed in exemption Notification No. 91/89 granting concessional rate of duty of 50% as against the standard rate of 85%. The Asstt. Collector (Refunds) rejected their refund claim for the differential rate of duty between the standard rate and the concessional rate on the ground that the items in the catalogue cannot be connected with those indicated in the invoices. He rejected the importer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Ceramic Capacitors other than of Disc type. He referred to the certificate given by the Chartered Engineer and enclosed as part of the Appeal papers at pages 73-77 in which the Chartered Engineer had certified that the items shown in the invoice corresponded to the items falling under S. No. 9 of the Table Annexed to Notification 91/89 as amended. Similarly, he referred to page Nos. 81 to 84 as regards switches and relays mentioned at S. No. 11 21 of the Notification and corresponding items shown in the invoices for S. No. 15 of the Notification mentioning Loud Speakers of only Cone type, reliance was placed on the Chartered Engineer s Certificate enclosed at pages 71-72. As regards coils IF/RF mentioned at S. No. 20 of the Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After considering each items on merits, the Collector (Appeals) had held that the importer was entitled to exemption under the said Notification in respect of S. Nos. 6, 8, 13, 19, 21 and 29(ii). As regards goods covered by S. Nos. 9, 11, 15, 20 and 22, the Collector (Appeals) had found that the conditions prescribed in relation to the said goods had not been satisfied since the part number of the goods as mentioned in the invoice did not tally with the part numbers as given in the catalogue produced by the appellants. The Collector (Appeals) had; therefore, rightly held that in respect of those S. Nos. owing to the variation in the part numbers he had declined to interfere with the findings of the Asstt. Collector. 8. We have considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missibility of the said certificate at this stage. If the appellants had obtained the said certificates before the passing of the impugned order nothing prevented them from producing them before Collector (Appeals) in support of their claims. Having failed to do so, they cannot rely on the certificates at this stage. We therefore, do not take cognisance of the said certificates. 10. Since appellants have not shown any other material to cast any doubt on the findings of the Collector (Appeals) on the items in dispute, we find no reason to interfere with the order. 11. As regards the point relating to unjust enrichment, since the matter already stands referred to the authority below, we do not agree with the submission made by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
