AUTO TRACTORS LIMITED, PRATAPGARH versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEAL), BOMBAY

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 19-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~. 
AUTO TRACTORS LIMITED, PRATAPGARH 
I 
v. 
A 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEAL), BOMBAY 
JANUARY 19, 1989 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Customs, Tariff Act, 1975: First Schedule JCT No. 87.01 (I) and 
Customs Notifications Nos. 200/79 dated 28.9.1979 and 179/80 dated 
-j 
4.9.1980--Company manufacturing agricultural tractors-Components 
imported to be used in the manufacture thereof-Entitlement to con-
cessional rate of duty-Validity of. 
c 
~ 
Customs Notification No. 200/79 dated 28.9.1979 exempts com-
ponents required for the maoufacture of heavy commercial motor vehi-
cles or of tractors from customs duty in excess of 25 per cent ad valorem 
and whole of the additional duty leviable thereon. Notification No. 179/ 
80 dated 4.9.1980 exempts components required for the purpose of 
D 
initial setting up or for the assembly or maoufacture of tractors, an 
article falling under Heading No. 87 .01(1) of the First Schedule of the 
Act from so much of the customs duty as is in excess of the rate ap-
~ 
plicable to the said article when imported complete. 
The appellant-company imported three consignments of com-
E 
ponents of agricultural tractors. The Directorate General of Technical 
Development issued certificate in terms of notification No. 179/80 stat-
• 
ing that the appellaot-compaoy was holding a valid industrial licence 
for the manufacture of agricultural tractors and have an approved 
~ 
manufacturing programme. The appellant cleared the goods availing 
itself of the said concession. Having realised later that it was entitled to 
F 
the larger concession available under Notification No. 200 of 1979, it 
filed three applications in respect of the said consignments claiming 
refund to the extent of the difference between the entitlements to con-
cession under the two notifications. The DGTD issued certificates in 
terms of notification No. 200of1979 in its favour. 
The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected assessee's prayer on 
G 
the ground that it had failed to produce end-use certificate. Its appeals 
~ before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) failed. The Customs, Excise 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the 
ground that the appellaot did not produce the approved manufacturing 
programme at the time of clearance of the goods as required under 
Notification No. 200of1979. 
H 
281 
A 
B 
c 
D 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
In these appeals it was contended for the respondents that since 
the amended certificates were not produced at the time of clearance but 
only much later the assessee was not entitled to the concession under 
Notification No. 200of1979. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: 1. The assessee is entitled to the concession available 
under Notification No. 200 of 1979. [2878-C] 
2.1 The grant of concession depends on production of evidence by 
the importer to the Assistant Collector of Customs at the time of clear-
ance of the components or the goods that they have a programme duly 
approved by the Ministry of Industry and the Industrial Adviser or 
Additional Industrial Adviser of the Directorate General of Technical 
Development of the Ministry of Industry for the manufacture of such 
motor vehicles or of tractors and not on the reference in the certificates to 
the notifications that can be availed of by the assessee. [286C-D; 287B I 
2.2 In the instant case, the assessee had produced unequivocal 
evidence in the form of original set of certificates from DGTD at 
the time of clearance of the goods of the fact that the appellant held a 
valid industrial licence for the manufacture of agricultural tractors and 
~ 
that it also had an approved manufacturing programme. That was 
E 
sufficient compliance with the terms of the notification in question. The 
omission of the assessee to request the DGTD to refer to the assessee's 
entitlement under the 1979 notification or the omission of the DGTD to 
refer to the assessee's entitlement under the 1979 notification cannot 
F 
take away the assessee's rights. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, 
...
set aside. [286F-H; 287A] 
1-""'I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 850-
852 of 1988. 
From the Order dated 23.10.87 of the Customs Excise and Gold 
(Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. 830/83-B2 
G and C/3105 & 3105 of 87/B-2. Order Nos. 2091to2093/87-B. 
A.N. Haksar, H.S. Anand and Mrs. M. Karanjawala for the 
)-
Appellants. 
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.