2001 (8) TMI 231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was produced prior to the adjudication along with the reply of show cause notice. However, the Asstt. Commissioner had rejected their certificate on the ground that the certificate was not produced at the time of clearance of the goods. The Commissioner in his order in Paras 5 and 6 has recorded as follows :- "I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the oral and written submissions made thereunder. I have also perused the case laws relied upon by the appellant. The issue for my consideration is the maintainability of the impugned order passed by the lower authority. It is seen that the Asstt. Commissioner has held that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 108/95, dated 20-8-95 on the grou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re the defect. Therefore, the Asstt. Commissioner was justified in not accepting the certificate and the order of the Commissioner held that the certificate could be accepted even subsequently is not correct as per law. 4. Ld. Counsel submits that the certificate was required to have been produced from Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India. There was a delay in obtaining from the Govt. of India. However, the terms of the notification requiring production of certificate is a procedural one. He contends that there is no substantive violation of the notification. He submits the issue is already covered by Tribunal's judgment rendered in the case of Birla Institute of Technology v. CC as reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 753 by which the Tribuna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the grounds of appeal in which we notice the total duty confirmed is Rs. 2,93,619/- solely on the ground that the certificate has not been produced before the clearance of the goods. Although this is the condition laid down in the notification but the said condition has to be held as procedural one. In the light of the ratio of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Mangalore Fertilizers & Chemicals v. Deputy Commissioner as reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.). The Apex Court has clearly laid down that so long as there is substantive compliance of the notification, the benefit cannot be denied. The Tribunal in the case of Birla Institute of Technology v. CC (supra) (a three member Bench) clearly states that the delay in submi....