9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the imported parts with reference to Tariff Entry 34A of the CET, the appellants contend that the classification of these components, for the purpose of basic customs duty, has been accepted as 'machinery parts', and as such they could not be treated as 'motor vehicle parts' for the purpose of additional duty. They further plead that they hold licence for the manufacture of 1C engines and not for 'motor vehicles', and they were predominantly manufacturing stationary/industrial type of engines only. 2. The appellants, after notice of hearing was sent to them, conveyed by means of written reply that they placed reliance on the three earlier orders of this Tribunal, and requested that the matter may be decided on the basis of submissions alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not be possible in the case of imported goods. 5. Before us, Shri S.C. Rohatgi, DR on the date of hearing, appearing for the respondent, argued to defend these orders but on his attention being drawn to the orders passed by the Tribunal, on which the appellants have placed reliance; Shri Rohatgi did not have much comments to offer except for pointing out that the Bombay High Court judgment with reference to which first order of the Tribunal was recorded did not deal with question of CV duty. We however find on a reference to Order No. 59/83-B, dated 22-2-1983 that the Tribunal has gone by the fact that the Bombay High Court in their judgment recorded in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 557 Kirloskar Cummins Limited v. N.K. Kapoor & Others have clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were subject-matter of those earlier decisions referred to by the Appellate Collector, or that the goods in this case were different than those, involved in the earlier orders of the Tribunal, on which the appellants have placed reliance. 6. We therefore do not find existence of any ground to take a view, different than taken earlier. We also do not feel convinced with the reasoning for denying benefit of Notification 101/71 and 153/71 for the reasons stated because, we feel that in view of the finding that these imported goods were primarily used by the appellants for machinery and not on motor vehicles, strict insistence on compliance of the provisions of Chapter X of Central Excise Rules was not justified; being not practical or fea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
