TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise, relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee is not under the aforesaid 1996 Rules but it is only a Certificate that the Assessee has not availed the Cenvat Credit on that consignment and that Certificate has nothing to do with the 1996 Rules in question. There are no justification for the learned Tribunal to hold that these Rules are only procedural or directory in nature and therefore it could be applied for the import made at prior point of time. Then, the very purpose of Rules and requirement of the Assessee to apply under Rule 4 for the intended imports in future would be frustrated, if these Rules were to be applied retrospectively to the imports already made. There was no question of substantial compliance by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue in favour of the Respondent/Assessee M/s.Medreich Sterilab Limited holding that Rules 3 and 4 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1996') were only procedural in nature and therefore, though the Application for registration under Rule 3 was filed later on and the Registration granted to the Respondent/Assessee to avail the exemption from payment of duty in respect of import under Bill of Entry No.550344 dated 28.6.2003 under which goods imported in question which were cleared by the Customs Authority on 30.6.2003, prior to the date of Registration under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee to avail the exemption of duty on the basis of such registration and therefore the Tribunal has erred in granting such exemption in favour of the Assessee. 4. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Assessee, Mr.Rajesh Chandrakumar urged before us that a Certificate was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise allowing the Assessee to avail such exemption with respect to the same Bill of Entry No.55034 dated 30th June 2013 on 3.7.2003 itself and therefore even though the registration of Assessee under 1996 Rules was done later on 14.7.2003, the Assessee had rightly availed the said exemption and the Rules in question are only directory in nature and therefore the order of the learned Tribunal is just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticulars of the notification applicable on such import and the port of import. (1A) The manufacture may, at his option, file the application specified under sub-rule (1), either in respect of a particular consignment, or indicating his estimated requirement of such goods for a period not exceeding one year. (2) The manufacturer shall also give undertaking on the application that the imported goods shall be used for the intended purpose. (3) The application shall be countersigned by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise who shall certify therein that the manufacturer is registered in his office and has executed a bond to his satisfaction in respect of end use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns prescribed therein have to be strictly adhered and there is no place for equity or intendment in the interpretation of the taxing Statutes. By holding that the Rules of 1996 are only procedural or directory in nature, the learned Tribunal has frustrated the very purpose of Rules 3 and 4 in question by holding that the Assessee is entitled to the exemption for import made on 28.6.2003. There is no dispute before us that the registration under Rules 1996 was granted in favour of the Assessee only on 14.7.2003 and not at any point of time prior to that and therefore we cannot uphold the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Assessee had also raised a question with regard to maintainabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
