ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice-President
1. This is a stay application filed by the Department with reference to order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh, tit. 18.4.1991.
2. The learned DR stated that in this case the respondents availed of the benefit of Notification 344/86 and 83/87 which prescribed two conditions viz. there should be a DGTD certificate and an officer not below the rank of Joint Director in the Department of Electronics should recommend the grant of concessional notification and both these conditions were not satisfied at the time of clearance of goods from the bonded warehouse. Hence the learned Collector (Appeals) has erred in granting the benefit and the Department prays for stay of the operation of the order.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondents stated that they had produced both the certificates at the time of importation of goods and filing of…into the Bond & Bills of Entry. But at that time only nominal assessment was made at the standard rate and they were advised to produce certificates at the time of clearance from the bonded warehouse. When they produced them at the time of clearance of goods from the bonded warehouse they were told that the DGTD certificate had expired and was no longer valid.
4. It was their contention that the Asst. Collector had erred in holding this view and the learned Collector (Appeals) was right in granting them the benefit and there was no cause for stay.
5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We observe that admittedly the required certificates/letter of recommendation were produced at the time of filing of bills of entry initially.
6. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances and noting the above point in particular we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Collector (Appeals), at this stage and hold that sufficient cause has not been shown by the Department for accepting their prayer. As such we reject the same.
(Pronounced in open court)