TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) in his order had held :- "I have carefully gone through the records of the case as well the submissions made by the appellant. The issue in this case largely depends on the applicability and interpretation of the Notification No. 232/83, dated 18-8-83. As per the terms and the conditions of the notification in question the benefit can be extended subject to the conditions that an officer not lower than a Joint Director in the Department of Electronics of the Government of India, or a Director in the Directorate of Industries of a State or an Additional Industrial Adviser in the Directorate General of Technical Development of the Government of India, as the case may be, is satisfied in each case that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods as per the terms and conditions of Notification 232/83, dated 18-8-83. The Asstt. Collector therefore, rejected the appeal. The order of the Asstt. Collector was more or less confirmed by the ld. Collector (Appeals). 3. Shri Naveen Mullick, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the importers were actual users of the imported goods; that the importers were registered as actual users (Industrial) of the imported goods with the Director of Industries right from 1973; that the importers filed a declaration in the Bill of Entry that they were actual (Industrial) users of the imported goods and that the imported goods were meant to be used by them for manufacture of Tape Deck Mechanism; that the proper offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hts; that benefit should be allowed as there was substantial compliance of law; that technicalities should not come in the way of granting substantial benefit. In support of his contention, the ld. Advocate cited and relied upon the ratio of the judgment in the cases reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2407, 1991 (56) E.L.T. 470 and 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534. 4. Shri K.K. Jha, the ld. SDR appearing for the respondents submitted that the certificate was required to be issued by the Director of Industries on the date of clearance of the goods whereas in the instant case the certificate was issued by the Joint Director of Industries; that if substantive rights are effected, then the requirement is mandatory or legal but if substantive rights are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is fully in favour of the Revenue. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides and considered them. We find that in the instant case, the limited issue is whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 232/83, dated 18-5-83 and whether the amendment by amending Notification 285/83, dated 3-10-83 was only a procedural requirement and whether the amended Notification applied to the period prior to the date of issue of this Notification. 6. Notification No. 232/83, dated 18-8-83 provided that "An officer not below in rank than a Joint Director in the Department of Electronics of the Government of India or a Director in the Directorate of Industries of State or an Additional In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....satisfaction' as also that such certificate was required specifically in each case, we hold that these three conditions were not procedural conditions, but substantive conditions and as such officer was required to satisfy himself before issue of the certificate that the applicant was actual user (Industrial) of the items concerned, and therefore, the contention that there was substantial compliance fails. 7. On the question of whether the essentiality certificate issued on 9-11-83 could be effective to the clearance before this date, we observe that there was no provision in the amending notification that it would be applicable retrospectively, we hold that the amending notification was not applicable retrospectively. However, we o....