JUDGMENT
1. Delay of two days in filing this appeal condoned.
2. One of the issue that would come up for consideration in this appeal by the department is the possible liability to duty of drawings and designs which may have been supplied to the respondent by its German collaborators in pursuance of the technical know-how agreement. The departmental representative cites the Supreme Court’s judgment in ACC v. CC 2001 (128) ELT 21 to say that these drawings should have paid duty.
3. The representative for the respondent contends that the importation took place in 1992-93 and suggest that the period of limitation contained in Section 28 has run out. He also contends that, when these drawings were imported, they were exempted from duty.
4. After hearing both sides, we think that in view of the continuous imports to be made by the respondent, it would be in the interest of both sides to have the issue decided finally. Before doing so, however, we would to know the exact position as to much how of the know-how for which payment was made consisted of drawings and designs; when these drawings and designs, if may, were imported; whether their importation were declared to the department; whether any duty was paid. We would like an affidavit from the managing director of the respondent in this regard to be attached to the written submission to be filed. The department may also submit a statement indicating details of imports that it noticed in this regard supported by relevant documents.
5. Each side to make available of these documents within 45 days from to day. Appeal to be listed for hearing on 31.1.2002.
6. The stay application is dismissed.