Approved manufacturing programme certificate was enough for customs exemption; a wrong notification reference did not defeat entitlement.

A customs exemption requiring proof of an approved manufacturing programme is satisfied by a contemporaneous certificate from the competent DGTD authority expressly certifying that approval. The Supreme Court held that customs authorities could not insist on production of the programme itself in the form they preferred when the certificate already evidenced compliance at clearance. A mistaken reference in the certificate to another notification was treated as surplusage because entitlement depended on the existence of the approved programme, not on that reference. The larger concession was therefore available and denial of refund was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 200/79 despite the original DGTD certificate referring to Notification No. 179/80 and the approved manufacturing programme not being separately produced in the form insisted upon by the customs authorities.

Analysis: The concession under Notification No. 200/79 depended on proof, at the time of clearance, that the importer had a programme duly approved by the competent DGTD authority for manufacture of tractors. The original DGTD certificate expressly stated that the appellant held a valid industrial licence and had an approved manufacturing programme. That certificate therefore furnished the necessary evidence of compliance. The Tribunal erred in treating the notification as requiring production of the manufacturing programme itself, instead of evidence of its approval. The reference in the first certificate to Notification No. 179/80 was treated as surplusage, because entitlement turned on the existence of the approved programme and not on the notification number mentioned in the certificate.

Conclusion: The appellant satisfied the condition in Notification No. 200/79 and was entitled to the larger concession. The denial of refund was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a customs exemption notification requires evidence of an approved manufacturing programme, a contemporaneous certificate from the competent authority expressly certifying such approval is sufficient compliance, and a mistaken reference to another notification does not defeat the substantive exemption.

---