9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be eligible for the benefit of classification under Chapter heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff and thereafter it should be considered as machinery for the manufacture of electronic items as certified by the Deputy Director General of Department of Telecommunication, as per the certificates produced by the importers at the time of clearance. In appeal Nos. 136 to 139/98, the import is of machinery for manufacture of 'Jelly Filled Telephone Cables' for which the Deputy Director General of the Department of Telecommunication had issued the necessary certificates as provided under the said Notification and exemption was granted in both these cases and goods were allowed to be cleared. 3. The DRI authorities on investigating the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 22, Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. v. CCE as reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), Yellamma Dasappa v. CCE as reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 67 (Kar), Sab Nife Power Systems Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 2000 (1) ECL 137, Northern Plastic Ltd. v. CC as reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.), Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.), Escorts Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 379, SPGC Metal Industries P.Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 286 (T) = 2000 (90) ECR 163, CCE v. Malleable Iron & Steel Castings Co., as reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.), Electrical Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 472 (Tri) to submit that the Commissioner cannot sit in ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of letter is incomplete and should not have been considered by the proper officer to have made the imports eligible for the benefit of the said Notification. He submits that DRI officers have obtained certificates of the competent authority and the letter at Annexure 'IX' is only a letter from testing authorities and not the competent authority mentioned in the Notification and not much should be read in that letter. He submits that this certificate at Annexure IX from SQTC, Directorate of Electronics, has been mentioned in the show cause notice itself to be only based on commercial and market usage and knowledge of the product and not the technical opinion about the product and therefore, not much should be read in the letter. He submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon by him are relevant to grant the benefit of this Notification or at least the benefit of no suppression/limitation of demands demanded in this case. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the material on record and find that - (a) the Notification in question is very clear, which allows the imports of machinery for the manufacture of the electronic items at the concessional rate subject to the condition that the machinery should be classified under Heading 9801 and it should be certified that the product which will emerge by using this machinery is an electronic item. This certification has to be done by the authorities competent as mentioned in the Notification. It is nobody's case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te produced by the importers (appellants) or the certificate produced by the Department, depicts the true picture of the facts i.e whether the goods are electronic or electrical. For this purpose, we would find that the matter should be re-adjudicated. The cross-examination of both the authorities of the certificates should be permitted to the appellants and the department, if they so choose, before the adjudicator. (b) We also find that the submission of learned DR that the certificate produced by the appellants is not applicable to grant eligibility of this Notification should be considered by the adjudicator and for this purpose the appellants also be put to notice, so that they can put forth their submissions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
