ivil Appeal Nos 850852 of 1988
From the Order dated 231087 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No 83083 B2 and C3 105  3 105 of 87B 2
Order Nos
2091 to 209387 B AN Haksar HS Anand and Mrs M Karanjawala for the Appellants
G Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General Ashok K Shrivastava and P Parmeswaran for the Respondent
283 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN J
The appellant Ms Auto Tractors Limit ed is a company manufacturing tractors
For purposes of manufacture the company imports certain parts and compo nents from abroad
There are two notifications on the Government of India granting certain concessions from the levy of customs duty which are applicable to such goods as have been imported by
the appellant
The first of these namely Notification No 20079 dated 28091979 as amended from time to time exempts components required for the manufacture of heavy commercial motor vehicles  or of tractors from so much of the customs duty as is in excess of 25 per cent ad valorem and the whole of the additional duty leviable there on
The grant of the concession was subject to the fulfill ment of certain conditions specified in the notification
The second notification was Notification No 17980 dated 491980 as amended from time to time
This notification confers an exemption in respect of parts of articles falling under specific headings in the First Schedule to the 
These admittedly included parts required for the purposes of the initial setting up or for the assem bly or manufacture of tractors this being an article falling under heading No 87011 of the First Schedule above referred to
This exemption was in respect of so much of the customs duty as is in excess of the rate applicable to the said article ie tractor when imported complete
This concession was again subject to a certificate and recommendation from certain specified authorities one of whom is the Directorate General of Technical Development DGTD The relief available to the assessee under the first notification of 1979 is apparently larger than the one available under the second notification of 1980
The appellant company imported three consignments
Each of the consignments was cleared after production of a cer tificate from the DGTD in the following terms Certified that Ms Auto Tractors Ltd Luc know are holding a valid Industrial Licence for the manufacture of agricultural tractors and have an approved manufacturing programme
It is further certified that the above compo nents of agricultural tractors which fall under ICT No 8701 1 qualify for conces sional rate of import duty in terms of Cus tom s Notification No 179F No 3709979CUS
I dated 491980 underlining ours
284 Apparently since the certificates of the DGTD referred only to Notification No 17980 the appellant was granted the concession available under the said Notification
The appel lant cleared the goods availing itself of the said conces sion in March May and June 1981
Subsequently the appellant appears to have realised that it was entitled to the larger concession available under Notification No 200 of 1979 and that it had erred in clearing the goods after payment of duty subject only to the smaller concession available under Notification No 179 of 1980
The appellant therefore filed three refund applica tions in August September and October 1981 claiming refund to the extent of Rs 15534250 Rs 12835005 and Rs64641544 being the difference between the entitle ments on concession under the two notifications in question
It also appears that the appellant subsequently applied to the DGTD for an amendment of the original certificates to make it clear that the goods imported by the appellant were eligible for the concession under notification No 200 of 79
The DGTD on such application issued a certificate to the following effect Certified that Ms Auto Tractors Ltd Pra tapgarh are holding an Industrial Licence to manufacture Agricultural Tractors and have an approved manufacturing programme
It is fur ther certified that the items listed above are components of agricultural tractors falling under ITC No 8701 1 and are eligible for concessional rate of import duty under custom notification No 20079 and 5281 as extended by Custom s notification No 8181 and 8281 both dated 283
This supersedes the earlier duty concession certificate issued by this office vide Notifi cation No 179F No 370 9979 CUS
I dated 491980 under this office letter No DD II54979 Ag dated 16181
 These amended certificates were also produced before the Customs authorities
The assessee s prayer for refund was however rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the assessee had failed to produce end use certificates
The assessee s appeals to the Collector of Customs Appeals also failed
There were further appeals to the CUstoms Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal which by its order dated 23101987 dismissed the appeals of 285 the Appellants and hence the present appeals
The Tribunal disposed of the assessee s claim by a short order
It observed that the Notification No 20079 entitled an assessee to the concessions therein mentioned on the fulfillment of three conditions i A manufacturing programme as duly approved by the Direc tor General of Technical Development DGTD should be produced at the time of clearance of the goods
ii The list of components and goods should be produced duly certified by the DGTD and iii An End use certificate from the same Directorate to be produced in clue course in regard to the consumption of goods in the manufacture of the motor vehicles or tractors etc
The Tribunal proceeded to observe The first statutory condition of the notifi cation that the manufacturing programme of the appellants as approved by the DGTD should have been produced before the Assistant Col lector at the time of clearance of the goods was not fulfilled by the appellants
As a matter of fact at the time of clearance of the goods there was no claim even by the appel lants under Notification Nos 200 and 20179Cus
Their claim at that time was under a different notification No 17980 Cus
Which contained no requirement to produce an ap proved manufacturing programme
Since the statutory wording of the notification made it imperative for the appellants that the ap proved manufacturing programme should have been produced at the time of clearance and since this condition was not fulfilled the entitlement of the appellants to the exemption is not accepted
The approved manufacturing programme was available all along with the appellants yet they did not produce it at the time of clearance before the Assistant Collec tor underlining ours We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Solicitor General and we are of the opinion that 286 the Tribunal has erred in denying the appellant the benefit of the Notification No 200 of 1979
This notification made the availability of the concession thereunder subject to three conditions of which one alone is relevant for our purposes
The Tribunal thought that this condition was that the approved manufacturing programme should have been pro duced at the time of clearance and it has denied the asses see the benefit of the concession even though satisfied that the approved manufacturing programme was all along available with the assessee because such programme was not produced at the time of the clearance
The Tribunal has committed an error in its reading of the relevant condition of the notification
The condition is not that the manufac turing programme should be produced but that the importer should produce evidence to the Assistant Collector of Cus toms at the time of clearance of the components or the goods that they have a programme duly approved by the Ministry of Industry and the Industrial Adviser or Additional Industrial Adviser of the Directorate General of Technical Development of the Ministry of Industry for the manufacture of such motor vehicles   or of tractors
In other words the importer had only to satisfy the customs authorities that it had an approved industrial programme for the manufacture of tractors by production of a certificate from the DGTD
It is indeed common ground before us that the second set of cer tificates issued by the DGTD constitutes sufficient evidence that would entitle the appellant to the concession under Notification No 201979
But the argument is that the amended certificates were produced not at the time of the clearance of the goods but only much later and that there fore the appellant is not entitled to the concession under the said notification
There is a fallacy in this approach for even ignoring the subsequent amendment of the certifi cates we are of the opinion that the production of the original set of certificates at the time of clearance of the goods was sufficient compliance with the terms of the noti fication in question
We have extracted the terms of this certificate earlier
It is an unequivocal certificate by the DGTD that the appellant holds a valid industrial licence for the manufacture of agricultural tractors and that it also has an approved manufacturing programme
That is all the second set also says
There is therefore no doubt that the assessee had produced evidence in the form of the said certificate of the fact that the appellant had an approved industrial programme
This was the only requirement of the notification and this requirement has in our opinion been complied with
The further words in the first set of certif icates that the assessee was eligible for the concession under 1980 notification were mere surplusage
The omission of the assessee to request the DGTD to refer to the asses see s entitlement under the 287 1979 notification or the omission of the DGTD to refer to the assessee s entitlement under the 1979 notification cannot take away the assessee s rights
The grant of conces sion depends on a certificate that the assessee had an approved manufacturing programme which is there and not the reference therein to the notifications that can be availed of by the assessee
We are therefore of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal should be set aside and that the assessee should be held entitled in respect of the three consignments referred to earlier to the concession available under Notification No 200 of 79
We direct ac cordingly
The appeals are allowed but having regard to the circumstances we make no order as to costs
PSS Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellant was a diploma holder and was serving as an AdministratorInstructor since 1976 in an Engineering Col lege
In May 1987 he submitted an application to the Univer sity for study leave for three years to enable him to prose cute his studies in the BE Engineering Degree Course
The Study Leave Committee recommended the case on August 3 1987 and the Syndicate of the University accepted the recommenda tion on August 14 1987 and the appellant was granted study leave for a period of 3 years with full pay
This order was communicated to the appellant on October 29 1987
The appellant submitted an application on November 14 1987 for admission on the BE Degree Course
This application was made after the last date for admission in the general seats had expired
The Officer in Charge Admissions raised cer tain objections to the effect that the appellant submitted the application after expiry of the last date and that he had obtained less than 60 marks in the Diploma Examination passed by him
The Dean considered the objections and recom mended the case of the appellant for admission to the Vice Chancellor
Thereafter the order for admission of the appel lant was issued by the Dean the appellant deposited the fees and joined classes from January 16 1988
On February 18 1988 the appellant was communicated an order dated January 20 1988 of the Dean directing that his admission was put in abeyance until further orders
The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of with drawal of his admission before the High Court unsuccessful ly 231 In the appeal to this Court the objections that were raised to the admission of the appellant were that 1 he had not secured 60 of marks which was the minimum require ment for admission and 2 that he should not have been admitted after the last date
The admission it was submitted was illegal
Allowing the Appeal the Court HELD 1
The appellant had secured more than 60 of marks in the aggregate in the Diploma Examination and was not disqualified for admission in that regard
235B 2
When the appellant made the application beyond the last date his application should not have been entertained
But the application was entertained presumably on the basis of the resolution of the Syndicate dated December 13 1970
The appellant also brought to the notice of the Dean the said resolution and also the implementation of the same by admitting seven teacher candidates
236E F 3
Although the admission to the BE degree course is governed by statutes of the University and admission rules the Syndicate s resolution dated December 13 1970 had also been kept alive
Neither the Dean nor the Vice Chancellor was aware of the true position viz whether the resolution had become infructuous in view of the statutes and admission rules
The University should have revoked the said resolu tion to obviate any ambiguity in the matter of admission or included the same in the statutes as part of the admission rules
236C E 4
It is the duty of the University to see that its statutes rules and resolutions are clear and unambiguous and do not mislead bona fide candidates
236D 5
When after considering all facts and circumstances and also the objections by the office to the admission of a candidate the ViceChancellor directs the admission of such a candidate such admission could not be said to have been made through mistake
236G 6
Assuming that the appellant was admitted through mistake the appellant not being at fault it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appel lant
236H