TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered as raw materials or consumables etc. specified in Notification - Held that: - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF C. EX. Versus BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. [1989 (9) TMI 102 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], observed that sodium sulphate can be considered as a raw material - the ground of the department that the respondents are not eligible for notification for the reason that the catalyst imported by them cannot be considered as raw material is not tenable and therefore rejected. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/545 to 547/2006 - Final Order No. 41264-41266/2017 - Dated:- 23-6-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri A. Cletus, Addl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) has erred in holding that the respondents have complied with the condition of production of requisite certificate when the respondents have not obtained such certificate at the time of import of the goods. That the delay in producing the certificate at the time of import cannot be condoned and that such condition is mandatory for availing the benefit of concessional duty as per the notification. It was also argued by the learned AR that the benefit of Notification is available only for import of raw materials whereas the respondents have imported catalyst which cannot be considered as raw materials. 3. Against this, the learned counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan appearing for the respondents submitted that the only issue that was considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at the delivery end of process . It was also argued by him that the Commissioner (Appeals) had referred to another Order-in-Appeal Cus. Nos. 903 to 910/2005 dated 23.12.2005 which covered an identical issue wherein the benefit was extended even though the certificate was produced belatedly. 4. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 5. The department contends to deny the benefit of Notification on two grounds. Firstly, that the respondents have not complied condition No. 37 of producing the requisite certificate at the time of import. It has to be stated that the only issue on which the benefit was denied by original authority was that appellants had not produced the requisite certificate. At the appellate stage, the req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
