HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these 31 appeals have been filed by a PSU Unit who has obtained clearance from the Committee of Secretaries and hence these appeals are taken up together for disposal as per law. There are two issues involved in these appeals. In 24 appeals, the refund application was rejected on time bar, in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, as the application had been processed beyond the period of six months. The delay ranges from 9 days to 1027 days. The duty had not been paid under protest neither the assessments were provisional. The second issue involved in the matter is the appellants prayer for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Project Imports Regulations which has been rejected on the ground that the Project imports had not been registered under Project Imports (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965 which was held as sine qua non for the grant of the benefit.

(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel Shri T.M. Subramanyam and learned SDR Shri A. Jayachandran, extensively.

(3.) THE learned Counsel submits that a substantive benefit available for a unit for grant of concessional rate of duty cannot be denied merely because the project had not been registered under the said Regulations. It is his submission that the appellant is a PSU Unit under the Ministry of Defence. They had to pass through several procedural rigmarole and a delay was caused in this regard. The Project imports was approved belatedly in 1984 while the imports had taken place in between 1981 to 1983. It is his submission that the Apex Court, in the case of Thermax Private Ltd. v. CC - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 352 (S.C.) has taken a view that the non -production of C.T. 2 Certificate and procedural violation of Chapter X procedure of the Central Excise Rules should not debar the assessee from claiming the benefit of Rule 192 of the C.E. Rules. He also refers to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Deeksha Suri v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 524 (Del.) wherein the matter pertaining to rectification of mistake was taken up and the High Court held that the rules of procedure are meant to promote the cause of justice and not vice versa. He submits that a broad view has to be taken in this matter and the delay in getting the Project Report signed should be condoned.