9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial)]. - Question for decision in this Revision Application to Government of India transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it is whether Polyproplene Multifilament filter cloth for Rotary Drum Filter imported by the appellants should have been classified as fabric under Tariff Item No. 22 of the Central Excise Tariff or as component parts of machinery and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng when the goods had been for the purpose of basic customs duty held to be component parts of machinery. The Assistant Collector of Customs by his order dated 8-2-1977 held that liability to CV duty does not depend on ICT classification for basic customs duty and, further, the goods were synthetic artificial silk fabric covered by Item 22 of CET. With these findings he rejected the claim for re-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achinery. The customs authorities by classifying the goods as component parts of machinery under Item 72(3) ICT were precluded from again classifying it as synthetic or artificial silk fabric under Item 22 CET. He submitted that the appropriate classification for the goods was as component parts of machinery which at the material time were exempt from central excise duty and thus from CV duty. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J 355 - and LUCAS TVs Ltd., Madras v. Union of India 1978 E.L.T.J 711. 6. For the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to express a finding on the contention of the parties about classification for the purpose of basic customs duty corresponding with classification for the purpose of CV duty, i.e. under the Central Excise Tariff. 7. It was not disputed by the respondents that componen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
