1.This matter was originally a Revision Application before the Government of India and on transfer to the Tribunal is being dealt with as an appeal.
2. The point involved in the appeal is the assessment of 'Gas Collecting Device'stated to be a component part of transformer. The appellants paid duty under C.T.A. 84.65 and claimed re-assessment in terms of Notification No. 37-Cus /79 which covers the importation of component parts. The Assistant Collector rejected the request for re-classification as end-use certificate, catalogue/literature and D.G.T.D. certificate were not produced though sufficient time was given. The Colleator (Appeals) noted that the appellants in their letter dated 24-2-1981 stated that they could not obtain the D.G.T.D.certificate and hence they have requested for rejecting the appeal. In the absence of the D.G.T.D. certificate the appeal was rejected as unsubstant iated.
3. In the appeal and before us the appellants stated that End-use certificate and drawings showing position of the component was submitted on 19-12-1980 whereas Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal on 22-2-1981 in the absence of DGTD certificate. They submitted a photo copy of the DGTD certificate with the revision application and requested that it may be taken into consideration.
4. On behalf of the department the learned representative submitted that under Notification No. 37/79 a certificate from the DGTD recommending concessional assessment under Notification No. 37 of 79 and execution of a bond for duty difference at the time of clearance of the goods were necessary pre-conditions. In this case the appellant did not fulfileither of the conditions at the appropriate time. The D.G.T.D. certificate was not in existence at the time of importation or application for refund.
5. Having considered the submissions of both the sides and having examined Notification No. 37/79 we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to the concession contained in the Notification. The DGTD certificate was obtained by the appellants after importation and this is not a case in which concessional assessment was given and a bond was executed. Therefore, the appellants are not eligible to the concession under Notification No. 37/79. In this view we dismiss the appeal.