1995 (2) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ents. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. These matters as listed in the annexure to this order have a common issue, namely, the claim for the exemption under the Customs Notification No. 35/79 or 179/80. The appellants in all these cases had imported components of excavators falling under Heading 84.23 of the CCCN based Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. We have heard Shri R. Sub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s both at the original stage before the Assistant Collector as also before the Collector (Appeals). We however found that subsequently the appellants have furnished the required documents for want of which their claim had been rejected. Since these documents in substantiation of their claim have been produced for the first time before us and the lower authorities having not had the occasion to loo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that it will be reasonable to remand the case to the original authority in similar circumstances. We also find that in another decision of the Tribunal reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 580 (Tri.) = 1990 (29) ECR 414 in the case of Kirloskar Brothers v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, it has been held that the exemption under the same notification cannot be denied merely because of the omission to exec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X