ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Briefly stated. Facts of the case are as follows :-
The appellants herein had imported a consignment of horological brass strips and sheets. The clearance of the goods was allowed at concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 46/85-Cus., dated 28-2-1985. The appellants had executed a bond in terms of the said notification with an undertaking to produce the consumption certificate from the concerned Asstt. Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory where the appellants have been the manufacturing components of the said wrist watches. Within one year from the date of execution of the bond or such extended period as the Asstt. Collector of Customs may allow. This certificate was not produced. Accordingly the Asstt. Collector of Customs confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,16,646/- against the appellants as stated in the bond executed by the appellants.
2. On appeal the appellants herein produced a certificate from a firm of Chartered Accountants regarding the consumption certificate of the said imported goods in manufacture of components of wrist watches, namely, the wrist watch dials. This certificate has not been accepted by the lower appellate authority on the ground that the authority mentioned in the notification is Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and the certificate produced will not serve the purpose. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Learned Advocate Sh. J.S. Agarwal submits, drawing attention to the notice dated 3-2-1992, issued by the Asstt. Collector of Customs that the notice itself states two alternative authorities from whom certificate can be produced by the noticee, the appellants herein. Those two authorities are mentioned in the said letter as :-
1. Central Excise Authority
2. Chartered Accountant.
4. Learned Advocate therefore submits that the certificate of consumption given by the Chartered Accountant serves the purpose of the notification and therefore the demand should not have been confirmed by the lower appellate authority; that certificate should have been accepted by the said authority. He therefore prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
5. Learned JDR, Sh. R.S. Sangia for the Revenue, on the order hand, urges that the notice dated 3-2-1992 relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellants is merely a cyclostyled letter wherein the two authorities have been mentioned. Mentioning of these two authorities are also a part of the cyclostyled material. This notice therefore by itself does not entitle the appellants to produce the certificate of a Chartered Accountant particularly when the bond executed by them under the notification in question stipulates that the consumption certificate would be from the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise. In view of the bond executed by the appellants and the wording of the notification, submits the learned JDR, no doubt is left that the appellant is required to produce the consumption certificate only from the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise. The certificate from the Chartered Accountant produced by the appellant does not satisfy the terms and conditions of the notification in question 46/85-Cus. He therefore prays for dismissing the appeal.
6. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with the submissions of the learned JDR. We do not want to add anything more to it. Consequently we dismiss this appeal.