9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... research institutions, warehouse them and later clear the same to various institutions. The present case involves the eligibility of the appellants to the benefit of Customs Exemption Notification No. 51/96-Cus., dated 23-7-1996. The relevant extract of the Notification is as follows :- Sl. No. Name of the Importer Conditions 1 2 4 1. Public funded research institution or a University or an Indian Institute of Technology or Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, or a Regional Engineering College, other than a hospital. If, the importer - (i) is registered with the Government of India in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; (ii) produces at the time of impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not have retrospective effect. Consequently, duty demand of Rs. 2,59,32,455/- has been made by the lower authority which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. S/Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar and K.S. Naveen Kumar, the learned Advocates, appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Bhatt, the learned SDR appeared for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocates submitted the following points :- (i) They invited our attention to a decision of this Bench in the appellants own case reported in 2005 (189) E.L.T. 477 (Tri. - Bang.), where a similar Notification was interpreted. In this case, it was held that the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit. Since no appeal has been filed by the Department against the decision of Commissioner (Appeals), it has reached finality. Therefore, the Commissioner should not have taken a totally contrary stand against the appellant. (iv) In view of Board s Circular No. 27/2003, dated 2-4-2003, which was issued for removal of doubts, the amended Notification 20/2000 will have retrospective effect. (v) The reliance on the Mekastar Telematics Ltd. decision of the Tribunal is not proper as that case was decided on 10-10-2000, much before the Board s Circular clarifying the matter was issued on 2-4-2003. (vi) Finally, it was urged that this Notification being a beneficial piece of legislation, the amendment as well as the clarifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in the notification. A doubt has been raised whether goods imported by an importer not mentioned in column (2) against Sr. No. 1 of the table, but meant for delivery to an institution specified in the notification, can be extended benefit of concessional rate of duty under the said notification, or not. 2. The matter has been examined by the Board. Harmonious construction of provisions of the notification leads to the clear interpretation that benefit of concessional rate of duty under the said notification has to be allowed even in those cases where imports are made by importers other than the institutions specified in column (2) against Sr. No. 1 of the table, provided such imports are made for delivery to an institution specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, even when the actual import is made by the appellant, while the imported goods are meant for selling to Public funded research institutions mentioned in the notification, they would be entitled for the benefit of the notification and they can be held as importer for the purpose of the notification which is a piece of beneficial legislation. It does not make much sense to say that prior to 1-3-2000, the benefit of notification would be available only for direct import by the institutions and after the amendment, it would be available even when the import is made by others. There is no sanctity about the date of amending notification viz. 1-3-2000. It does not stand to reason that prior to 1-3-2000, the benefit would not be avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
