ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay issued on 25-9-1987 by which he had rejected their appeal against the order dated 15-4-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Group ‘C’, Bombay Custom House by which he had demanded differential duty of Rs. 2,53,683.41 on a consignment of Furfurylamine imported and cleared in August, 1986 at concessional rate under Notification 64/79. One of the conditions in that notification for the exemption therein is that the goods when imported must be used for the manufacture of penultimate drug intermediates or drugs. The appellants executed a bond on 11-8-1986 for the sum of Rs. 2,53,683.41 being the difference between standard and concessional rate of duty undertaking to furnish end-use certificate from Central Excise authorities to the effect that the goods imported had been fully used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs which was to be furnished within 6 months from the date of the bond i.e. on or before 10-2-1987. The appellants however, were unable to fully utilise the imported material within that date and hence on 2-2-1987, applied to the Assistant Collector for extension of the bond by a further period upto 10-8-1987. The Asstt. Collector passed an order on 15-4-1987 rejecting their application for extension and ordered the enforcement of the bond. The appeal against the Asstt. Collector’s order was also rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that the notification does not provide for the extension of the period of validity of the bond and also that according to the Notification, the final authority in the matter is the Assistant Collector who had already rejected the application for extension.
2. Shri F.HJ. Talayarkhan, Senior counsel appeared for the appellants with Shri J.R. Cama, advocate and contended that the appellants, when they found that the imported material could not be utilised within the time stipulated in the bond, had applied to the Asstt. Collector well in time for extension of its validity and that they had also produced the end-use certificate from the Central Excise authorities within a period of 3 months from the expiry of the bond period, but yet the Assistant Collector had refused the request for extension without assigning any reason. He also pointed out with reference to the Collector (Appeals)’s order that in terms of the bond, the Assistant Collector did have the discretion to grant extension and that further the notification itself does not prescribe any time limit for producing the end-use certificate. The learned counsel, therefore, urged that the order demanding differential duty was not correct in law. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri Sunder Rajan supported the order of the lower authority and contended that the Assistant Collector in his discretion had not found it a fit case to grant extension.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties herein and we find that the notification itself does not specify any time limit for the production of the end use certificate and the Asstt. Collector in terms of the bond had the discretion to extend the time. The appellants had applied within the period of validity for extension of time, which has been rejected by the Asstt. Collector in his order without giving any reasons at all. When such is the case, it was inappropriate for the Collector (Appeals) to conclude that that was the end of the matter especially as by that time, the end use certificate duly granted by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority was also available. In this context, we also note the observation of this Bench in its Order No. 43/1989-C dated 8-3-1989 on the appellant’s stay application while granting stay, that in similar matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view that technicalities should not deprive the assessee of the legitimate concession given by the Government if there is substantial compliance with law. We have also perused the end-use certificate dated 15-5-1987 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise Range VII, Mulund Division, available in the paper book to the effect that the imported material is fully utilised in the manufacture of penultimate drugs which tallies with the particulars of the imported goods contained in the bond executed on 11-8-1986. In the circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.