1990 (7) TMI 256 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal.
2. Classification and benefit of Notification No. 281/76-Cus. for 'Connecting Rod Bushes and Can Shaft Bushes.'
3. Applicability of subsequent amendments to Notification No. 281/76-Cus.
4. Eligibility of parts for concessional duty under Notification No. 69/87-Cus.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, dated 01-07-1988. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 01-08-1989, directed that if the appeal was filed within two weeks, no objection on the ground of limitation would be raised. The appeal filed on 11-08-1989 is thus deemed maintainable.

2. Classification and Benefit of Notification No. 281/76-Cus.:
The dispute arose in 1985 regarding the classification of 'Connecting Rod Bushes and Can Shaft Bushes' for Ford Tractor Engines. The appellants sought classification under Heading 84.06 C.T.A. and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 281/76-Cus., which was denied. The Supreme Court resolved the issue, stating that parts of engines mentioned in Heading No. 84.06 would get the benefit of the Notification, even if included under another heading. The Collector extended the benefit to parts not interchangeable with other motor-vehicle parts but denied it for others, citing subsequent amendments.

3. Applicability of Subsequent Amendments to Notification No. 281/76-Cus.:
Several amendments were made to Notification No. 281/76-Cus. by Notifications No. 103/86, 153/86, and 208/86. The Collector held that the Supreme Court's decision did not cover these amendments and thus denied the benefit for parts after 13-03-1986. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the amendments specified eligibility criteria, and only parts falling under Heading 84.09 would get the benefit. The Supreme Court's interpretation applied only to the original Notification No. 281/76.

4. Eligibility of Parts for Concessional Duty under Notification No. 69/87-Cus.:
The appellants claimed the benefit under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. The Collector denied this, stating that the Supreme Court's decision did not cover changes in the statute and advised the appellants to approach the assessing officer. The Tribunal found the Collector's order self-contradictory and lacking reasoned findings. It directed that each Bill of Entry should be assessed individually, and the appellants should follow the statutory hierarchy for relief.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order regarding Notification No. 281/76 and its amendments but allowed the appeal for certain parts listed in Annexure-'C,' directing the Collector to re-examine their eligibility. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the appellants were advised to seek relief through the proper channels for Notification No. 69/87.