Salico Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 24-11-1988 passed by collector (appeals), bombay who has confirmed the order passed by asstt. collector rejecting the refund claim on the ground that inspite of office letter dated 19-5-1986, the applicants had failed to produce the evidence called for by the office, that they had not produced the end-use certificate justifying the utilisation of the imported goods for the manufacture of "printed circuit boards".2. we have heard shri bhupinder singh, proprietor for the appellants and shri k.k. jha, ld. dr, for the revenue. the appellants had produced all the necessary documents evidencing the utilisation of the imported item for the manufacture of the final goods. the appellants submits that there was delay in producing the documents and therefore, the pray that the matter can be remanded for de novo consideration.4. we have heard both sides. we are satisfied that it is a fit case for remand. we find that notification no. 231/83, dated 18-8-1983 and requirement of its essential certificate does not apply, in case goods are imported against automatic licence and supplementary licence. our attention has been drawn to licence no. 1922012 which indicates automatic licence. we also find that the appellants have since produced necessary end-use certificate of the director of industries, delhi dated 28-10-1988. in view of this, we are of the view that it is a case for remand. therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to asstt. commissioner for de novo consideration after affording the appellants to reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Judgment:
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 24-11-1988 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay who has confirmed the order passed by Asstt. Collector rejecting the refund claim on the ground that inspite of office letter dated 19-5-1986, the applicants had failed to produce the evidence called for by the office, that they had not produced the end-use certificate justifying the utilisation of the imported goods for the manufacture of "Printed Circuit Boards".

2. We have heard Shri Bhupinder Singh, Proprietor for the appellants and Shri K.K. Jha, ld. DR, for the Revenue. The appellants had produced all the necessary documents evidencing the utilisation of the imported item for the manufacture of the final goods. The appellants submits that there was delay in producing the documents and therefore, the pray that the matter can be remanded for de novo consideration.

4. We have heard both sides. We are satisfied that it is a fit case for remand. We find that Notification No. 231/83, dated 18-8-1983 and requirement of its essential certificate does not apply, in case goods are imported against automatic licence and supplementary licence. Our attention has been drawn to Licence No. 1922012 which indicates automatic licence. We also find that the appellants have since produced necessary end-use certificate of the Director of Industries, Delhi dated 28-10-1988. In view of this, we are of the view that it is a case for remand. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to Asstt. Commissioner for de novo consideration after affording the appellants to reasonable opportunity of being heard.