Case: Auto Tractors Limited, Pratapgarh Vs. Collector Of Customs (Appeal), Bombay

Notification No. 81/81 and 82/81 both dated 28.3.1981." 3. This supersedes the earlier duty concession certificate issued by this office vide Notification No. 179/F. No. 370/99/79-Cus. I dated 4.9.1980 under this office letter No. DD-II/5(49)/79 Ag dated 16.1.1981."These amended certificates were also produced before the Customs authorities.4. The assessees 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 assessees 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 23.10.1987, dismissed the appeals of the Appellants and hence the present appeals. 5. The Tribunal disposed of the assessees claim by a short order. It observed that the Notification No. 200/79 entitled an assessee to the concessions therein mentioned on the fulfilment of three conditions : (i) A manufacturing programme as duly approved by the Director General of Technical Development (D.G.T.D.) 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 D.G.T.D.; and(iii) An Enduse certificate from the same Directorate to be produced in due 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 notification that the manufacturing programme of the appellants as approved by the D.G.T.D. should have been produced before the Assistant Collector 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 appellants under Notification Nos. 200 and 201/79- Cus. Their claim at that time under a different Notification No. 179/80-Cus. which contained no requirement to produce an approved manufacturing programme. Since the statutory wording of the notification made it imperative for the appellants that the approved 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.5. 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 Collector." 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Solicitor General and we are of the opinion that 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 though that this condition was that the the approved manufacturing programme should have been produced at the time of clearance and it has denied the assessee 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 errors in its reading of the relevant condition of the notification. The condition is not that the manufacturing programme should be produced but that "the importer should produce evidence to the Assistant Collector of Customs 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 certificates issued by the DGTD constitutes sufficient evidence that would entitle the appellant to the concession under Notification No. 200/1979. 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 therefore 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 certificates, 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 notification 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 is also has an approved manufacturing programme. This 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 certificates that the assessee was eligible for the concession under of the 1980 notification were mere surplusage. The omission of the assessee to request the DGTD to refer to the assessees entitlement under the 1979 notification or the omission of the DGTD to refer to the assessees entitlement under the 1979 notification cannot take away the assessees rights. The grant concession 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. 7. 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. 8. We direct accordingly.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]There is a fallacy in this approach, for, even ignoring the subsequent amendment of the certificates, 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 notification 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 is also has an approved manufacturing programme. This 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 certificates that the assessee was eligible for the concession under of the 1980 notification were mere surplusage. The omission of the assessee to request the DGTD to refer to the assessees entitlement under the 1979 notification or the omission of the DGTD to refer to the assessees entitlement under the 1979 notification cannot take away the assessees rights. The grant concession 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 accordingly. The appeals are allowed but having regard to the circumstances we make no order as to costs.