TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that Notification No. 232/83-Cus. provides concessional rate of duty at Srl. No. 11, in respect of Switches including Micro Switches and Reed Switches (upto 2 Amp at 28 Volts D.C. or 1 Amp at 110 Volts A.C.); that both the lower authorities have denied the concessional rate of duty in respect of Key Board holding that the Key Boards for the calculators are not in the nature of switches and as such Key Board is not covered by Srl. No. 11 of the notification; that as per certificate dated 11-11-1983 of the Directorate of Industries, Key Boards are Switches and this certificate was produced by them as per the conditions specified in the notification. She further submitted that the notification No. 237/83-Cus. provides concessional rate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings after a long time because it would cause serious deteriment and prejudice to the petitioner. She also relied upon the decision in the case of Bhagsons Paint Industries (India) v. CCE, New Delhi, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 400, wherein it was held that absence of statutory laid down time limit does not mean that there is no time limit at all for completion of adjudication and the adjudication order was set aside by the Tribunal as it was issued after almost 9 years. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of J.K. Rayon v. CCE, Allahabad, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 132 (Tribunal). 4. Countering the arguments Shri Ashok Kumar, learned D.R. submitted that as per Srl. No. 11 of the Notification No. 232/83-Cus., Switches have some kind of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions the burden is cast on them to show that products imported by them are covered by the products mentioned in the notification. No material has been brought by them on record to show that switches mentioned at Srl. No. 11 of notification No. 232/83 and Line Printer at Srl. No. 8 of Notification No. 237/83 would cover Key Board and Printers imported by them respectively. Proviso to Notification No. 232/83 provides that an officer not lower in rank than Joint Director in the Department of Electronics or a Director in the Directorate of Industries of a State or an Additional Industrial Advisor in DGTD is satisfied and certifies in each case that the importer is an actual user (Industrial) of the goods in question. The certificate relied upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended to the Printer as the appellants have not proved that the Printer imported by them were Line Printers. 6. We also do not find any force in the submissions of the learned Advocate that on account of delay in adjudication the order has become infructous. No provision of the Customs Act has been cited before us which provide any time limit for completion of the adjudication proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal is a creature of Customs Act and any authority acting under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Law as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs, 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641. Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, 1988 (37) E.L.T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcement asked the petitioner to send a copy of the adjudication order to substantiate that the case in question had been finalised by the department. In the light of these facts the Bombay High Court held that adjudication proceedings cannot be held twice over. Such is not the situation in the present matter. In J.K. Rayon case, relied upon by the appellants, besides delay in adjudication the show cause notice was issued after a period of 18 months of receipt of chemical test report. The request of retest was not considered and the department did not substantiate that technically it was possible to produce the yarn of the denierage as shown in the test result. Accordingly, the facts are completely different. In Bhagson Paint Industries' cas....