1987(01)LCX0061

BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH ‘B2’, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Harish Chander, Member (J) and D.C. Mandal, Member (T)

AROHAN MUKHYALAYA

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Order No. 34/87-B2, dated 8-1-1987 in Appeal No. CD/SB(T)A. No. 1408/81-B2.

Advocated By : Shri P.R. Tandan, Advocate, for the Appellants.

Shri D.K. Saha, J.D.R., for the Respondents.

[Order per : Harish Chander, Member (J)].- Arohan Mukhyalaya, Bombay had filed a revision application to the Central Government being aggrieved from Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-52/80GS, dated 18th November, 1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The said revision application stands transferred to the Tribunal in term of the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants imported Precision Jig Grinder Machinery and equipment vide Bill of Entry No. 1575, dated 17th March, 1979. The Bill of Entry was filed on 21st February, 1979. The imported goods were assessed to duty under Heading 84.65 at the rate of 60% plus 15% auxiliary duty. The appellants had filed a refund claim on 13th September, 1979 and had claimed reassessment under Heading 84.56 at the rate of 40%. The learned Assistant Collector of Customs had rejected the refund claim of the appellants and had held that the original assessment was correct. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellants had filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs. The learned Appellate Collector of Customs had desired the appellants to produce the duplicate invoice but the same was not filed before him and the appeal was rejected as un-substantiated. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellants have come in appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Shri PA. Tandon, the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the revision application. Shri Tandon has pleaded that the correct classification is under Heading 85.56 of the Customs Tariff and the rate of duty is 40%. Shri Tandon, the learned Advocate has pleaded that the appellants have duly attached a copy of the invoice, the purchase order, a photocopy of the catalogue and a copy of the Bill of Entry. Shri Tandon states that the assessment by the lower authorities was not correct in Law and the appellants’s request for classification under Heading 84.56 may be accepted. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.

4. Shri D.K. Saha, the learned Departmental Representative who has appeared on behalf of the respondent has pleaded that he want to be very fair with the appellants. The assessment under Heading 84.56 is not correct in Law. The correct assessment is under Heading 84.45/48 and the rate of duty is 40% which is claimed by the appellants though under a different Heading viz. 84.56. Shri Saha had argued that the imported goods cannot be classified under Heading 84.56 by any stretch of imagination. Shri Saha has drawn the attention of the Bench to the Invoice and the Purchase Order. He has pleaded that the invoice as well as the purchase order runs into a very large number of items. Precision Jig Grinder Machinery has to be assessed under Heading 84.45/48 whereas the other items imported by the appellants along with the Precision Jig Grinder Machinery have to be assessed under different headings on merits. He has pleaded for the remand of the matter.

5. Shri P.R. Tandon, the learned Advocate objects to the request of the learned Departmental Representative for remanding the matter and has pleaded that the Bench should decide the classification in respect of the other items imported along with the Precision Jig Grinder Machinery. He further states that even the other goods imported along with the Precision Jig Grinder Machinery are also to be assessed under Heading 84.45/48 as suggested by the Departmental Representative. He sticks to his argument that the assessment has to be made under Heading 84.56. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.

6. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Headings 84.65, 84.56 and 84.45/48 of the CTA, 1975 are reproduced below :-

A simple perusal of the headings shows that Heading No. 84.45/48 is the correct heading and as such we order the classification of the Precision Jig Grinder Machinery under Heading 84.45/48. In respect of the accessories imported along with the Precision Jig Grinder Machinery which has been charged separately the duty has to be charged separately on merits under appropriate headings of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in accordance with the provisions of Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963. In view of the above observations we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction for de novo adjudication. It is further directed that the Assistant Collector will re-adjudicate the matter in view of the observations made in this order. For statistical purposes the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Equivalent 1989 (42) ELT 117 (Tribunal)