1999 (9) TMI 896

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rements of Notification No. 24/91 dated 25-7-1991 for the purpose of availing concessional exemption of duty? 2. Heard Shri J. Sankarraman, learned advocate for the appellants, who submits that the said certificate was issued by the Office of the Director of Industries and was signed by the Joint Director in the absence of the Director, who was out of town. He submits that later the said certificate was countersigned by the Director in person, after he was available in his office. This was on 23-8-1992. He further submits that this issue has come before the Tribunal for the second time as vide earlier remand order of the Tribunal for necessary verification regarding the fact whether the Joint Director has delegated his responsibility by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the case and hence prays for consequential relief. 3. Heard Sri S. Kannan, learned D.R., who reiterates the Order-in-Appeal and also submits that unusual delay has been occurred during the consideration of this matter on de novo basis, as ordered by the Tribunal. This delay was because despite repeated opportunities, the assessees were not in a position to produce before the first appellate authority the certificate required from the Directorate of Industries. 4. On this point, the learned advocate submits that the original certificate signed by the Joint Director and ultimately countersigned by the Director was produced before the first appellate authority. However, now they are in the possession of original certificate signed by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of the appellants unit qualifies with the requirements of the said exemption Notification. We also find that the issue regarding the availability of the certificate subsequently has been looked into by the Tribunal in the case of Shyam Oil Cake (P) Ltd. v. CCE cited supra, wherein the Tribunal had held that even if such a certificate is produced subsequent to the date of clearance, substantive exemption in the Notification cannot be denied. We find that in this case subsequently the certificate issued on 29-7-1997 is in lieu of the one issued on 23-8-1992 and therefore, it is for the period covered by the earlier certificate. Hence, the facts of this case are pari materia with the facts of the case considered in Shyam Oil Cake (P) Ltd. c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X