TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Notification No. 424/86-Cus., dated 28-8-1986 since they had been imported on behalf of National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad who were a public funded institution approved by the Government of India as an organisation engaged in Research Development. They stated that they could not produce the required Duty Exemption Certificate since after utilisation for the clearance of another consignment, it had been retained by the Department. The appeal was, however, rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the grounds that the goods in question were imported by M/s. India Photographic Co. Ltd. Bombay, who are a company engaged in commercial activity, whereas Notification No. 424/86-Cus., dated 28-8-1986 exempts consumable goods required for the purpose of research when imported by any public funded research institutions. The Collector (Appeals) observed that in the Bill of Entry and the Invoice there was no indication that the goods had been imported on behalf of National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad. 2. On behalf of the appellants, Shri B.M. Parikh, Learned Senior Advocate appeared before us. He referred to the copy of the Letter of Authority at Annexure-II to the Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of Notification No. 424/86-Cus., dated 28-8-1986. 3. On behalf of the respondents, Shri Sharad Bhansali, the Learned SDR, submitted that Notification No. 424/86-Cus., dated 28-8-1986 exempts goods imported by a public-funded Research Institution subject to the condition that the certificates prescribed in the Notification are produced by the concerned institution at the time of importation. He contended that the appellants were not eligible for refund of the duty paid since there was no indication in the Bill of Entry and other import documents that the goods had been imported by any approved Research and Development Organisation and the relevant certificates were not produced at the time of importation. He stated that even if it is accepted that the appellant acted as an agent of the National Remote Sensing Agency for the importation of the goods, it has to be held that they were not entitled to claim any refund of duty. In support of his contention, he cited the Tribunal s decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Presto Works, Jallandhar, reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 469. Shri Bhansali also pointed out that in terms of Para 2(a) of the said Notification, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approved organisations engaged in Research and Development were permitted to import goods under the Open General Licence. The Learned Counsel for the appellants has also referred to the Agreement between the appellants and the National Remote Sensing Agency which provided not only for the importation of photographic material valued at Rs. 3,50,000/- by the appellants on behalf of the Agency but also authorised the appellants to file refund claims on their behalf. In this regard he has also referred to the affidavit of Shri V. Siva Rama Krishna, Senior Stores Officer of the said Agency wherein it has been confirmed that they had authorised M/s. India Photographic Co. Ltd. to file refund claims on their behalf. It is thus seen that the appellants were duly authorised by the National Remote Sensing Agency not only to import the goods in question on their behalf but also to file claims for refund of duty. Hence, the answer to the first point has to be in the affirmative. 6. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the Bill of Entry having been signed by the Assistant Collector, the assessment order has to be deemed as having been passed by the Assistant Collector and ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtation of the goods in question against Bill of Entry Cash No. 1787 dated 16-1-1987. 8. We find that in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 434 when exemption was subject to the production of a certificate from the specified authorities recommending the grant of exemption in each case on the basis of their satisfaction that the parts in question would be required for the specified purpose, the Tribunal held that as long as steps were taken for obtaining the required certificate before the importation of the goods, the certificate and consequential exemption and refund would not be rejectable on the grounds of difficulty in co-relation. Paras 16 and 17 of the said order being relevant are reproduced below : ******* 9. It is also seen that in the case of Oil India Limited v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 449, the Tribunal had held that even though under the Notification No. 333/88 the exemption was subject to the production of an Essentiality Certificate from the Secretary of Empowered Committee at the time of clearance, the fact that the application to the Empowered Committee had already been submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
