ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Ingersoll Rand (I) Ltd., the respondent to this appeal supplied a consignment of air compressor to Gem Granites, Bagalkot, the latter being a 100% export oriented unit (EOU for short). Exemption under Notification 123/81 was claimed for the compressors. This notification exempts from duty goods supplied to 100% EOUs subject to the procedure specified in the Annexure to that notification being followed. The procedure contemplates inter alia that the officer in charge of the EOU certifies the particulars contained in form CT3. This certificate essentially shows that the licence number of the 100% EOU, shows that it has executed a bond in form B-16 undertaking to pay duty on goods which are not utilized in the manufacture of the exported product, and otherwise comply with the conditions specified in the notification.
2. The certificate in form CT3 issued by the Superintendent on 25-9-1992 in charge of Gem Granites contained these particulars stated that it was valid up to 31-12-1992. The appellant dispatched a consignment of compressors of the 100% EOU on 5-1-1993. The benefit of notification has been denied to this consignment on the ground that the CT3 certificate was no longer valid when the consignment was sent. The appellant paid the duty and subsequently claimed refund. The Asst. Collector dismissed the refund claim again on the same ground. The manufacturer appealed this order. The Collector (Appeals) found that there was no basis in law for putting a time limit on the CT3 certificate. He found that there was nothing to show that goods had not been received by the 100% EOU. He therefore ordered the payment of the refund claimed. The department appeals this order.
3. The ground in the appeal that the Appendix to the notification contained provision that the grant of permission contained in the CT3 certificate shall expire on 31st December every year, and that therefore the certificate was not valid for claiming the exemption has to be accepted. However it is clear that this certificate has in fact been renewed. A copy of a certificate dated 28-1-1993 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bagalkot, where 100% EOU is located, produced by the advocate of the appellant, shows the receipt and use by the 100% EOU of a consignment of compressors sent by the appellant before me. The goods were sent by the respondent on 5-1-1993, that is, when the certificate for the previous year had expired, but had not yet been renewed. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order.
4. Appeal dismissed.
