9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent]. M/s. Cinecita Pvt. Ltd. have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Shri R. Parthasarthy, ld. Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He pleaded that the appellants had imported Projection lenses and had sought clearance under Heading 9002.90 read with the Heading 9002.92. Shri Parthasarthy pleaded that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appeal. 2. Shri S.K.Tyagi, ld. JDR pleaded that in view of the submissions of the ld. Advocate and the Divisional Bench judgement of Bombay High Court, he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench. 3. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The product in dispute is Projection lenses for use in Cinematographic Projectors. For proper apprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Vishal Electronics reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 557 and hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986. Shri Parthasarthy during the course of arguments pleaded that he does not press his ground of appeal on the issue of CV Duty and as such the contention of the appellants on this issue is rejected being withdrawn. In the result the appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
