Skip to content


Ex. Engineer (Civil), C.W. and Pr Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1992)(38)LC457Tri(Delhi)
AppellantEx. Engineer (Civil), C.W. and Pr
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....is whether appellants' should be granted the benefit of notification no. 211/1976 and granted refund of duty paid by them.2. the appellants by bill of entry no. cash-647 dt. 7.2.1980 imported hydrology equipment by air from london. at the time of import...claimed duty free import, claiming benefit of notification no. 211/76-cus. it appears that at that time the appellants were not possessed of necessary papers like nmi & de certificates and they paid duty under protest. 2a. later, they had applied to the assistant collector of customs for refund of duty, who by his order dated 12.8.1980 rejected the appellants' claim as unsubstantiated as the appellants did not produce the documents called for. in appeal, the appellate collector of customs, bombay by his order dated 20.11.1980.....
Judgment:
1. The question for decision in this appeal originally filed as Revision Application to the Government of India is whether appellants' should be granted the benefit of Notification No. 211/1976 and granted refund of duty paid by them.

2. The appellants by Bill of Entry No. Cash-647 dt. 7.2.1980 imported Hydrology Equipment by Air from London. At the time of import...claimed duty free import, claiming benefit of Notification No. 211/76-Cus. It appears that at that time the appellants were not possessed of necessary papers like NMI & DE Certificates and they paid duty under protest.

2A. Later, they had applied to the Assistant Collector of Customs for refund of duty, who by his order dated 12.8.1980 rejected the appellants' claim as unsubstantiated as the appellants did not produce the documents called for. In appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay by his order dated 20.11.1980 rejected the appellants claim on the ground that DE Certificate is not produced and the NMI Certificate produced showed that the application for the same was made on 21.1.1980 when the goods had been shipped on 10.1.1980, hence this appeal.

3. The appellants at this stage have produced duty exemption certificate in terms of the Notification. They have also produced NMI Certificate from the Directorate General of Technical Development, New Delhi.

4. At the hearing of the appeal, Sh. U.V. Purandware, Research Officer representing the appellants explained the circumstances under which application for NMI Certificate could not be made to the appropriate authorities before the shipment of the goods. He submitted that ordinarily such goods from the date of the order would take 4 to 6 months' time for shipment. This had been happening previously, but in the case of import in question, the goods arrived soon after the order and this is the reason why application to the appropriate authorities for NMI Certificate before the shipment of the goods could not be made.

5. On behalf of the respondent, Sh. K.V. Kunhi Krishnan, DR, defended the order passed by the lower authorities.

6. The only ground on which the appellants' claim for refund had been rejected is that they had not applied for NMI Certificate before the shipment of the goods, otherwise there is no dispute that the appellants and the goods are entitled to benefit of Notification in question. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels that a highly technical view in the matter should not be taken as the appellants though later have fulfilled all the condition of the Notification. In this view of the matter, the appellants' appeal deserves to be allowed.

6A. As a result the appeal is allowed and appellants granted the benefit of Notification No. 211/76-Cus. with consequential refund.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //