9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants were allowed to import one number Diesel Generating set of 4000 KW rating with accessories and issued a licence accordingly. The appellants presented Bill of Entry No. 7677, dated 28-1-1984. The Customs were of the view that spare parts, accessories and auxiliary equipment for diesel engine and generator were imported separately and were, therefore, assessable on merits as per their description and assessed the goods accordingly. The appellants filed refund claim on the ground that all the spares, accessories and auxiliary equipment imported by them were assessable under Chapter Heading 85.01(1). Their refund claim was rejected on the ground that the appellants claim for assessment of the items imported under Chapter Heading 85.01(1) was not acceptable inasmuch as the spares, accessories and auxiliary equipment for diesel engine and generator was not assessable under Tariff Heading 85.01(1) on the ground that there was a specific Tariff Heading for diesel engine and it was 84.06 and for generator, it was 85.01(1). Against this decision of the lower authorities, the appellants filed an appeal to the Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 116,390,000 C F Bombay; that the second shipment relating to the remaining parts of the item which together with the first lot constituted one complete DG set was made by the foreign supplier of various items including panel recommended spares, recommended maintenance spares and accessories; that the value of the consignment was Japanese Yen 6,16,10,000 C F Bombay that these two values together formed the total value Jap. Yen 17,80,00,000 which was the value of the DG set along with spares and accessories; that the Customs assessed the diesel engine under Chapter Heading 84.06 and the generator under Chapter Heading 85.01; that the entire consignment ought to have been assessed under Chapter Heading 85.01; that as the quantum of duty payable under Chapter Heading 84.06 and Chapter Heading 85.01 was the same, the appellants did not agitate this issue. However, the importers agitated in respect of second bill of entry dated 30th Jan., 1984 when customs authorities decided to assess each item on merits . The learned counsel submitted that the entire second consignment ought to have been assessed only under Customs Tariff Chapter Heading 85.01; that by adopting this wrong method ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interpreted by the Customs; that the classification of each item on merits of the second Bill of Entry was wrong; that a composite unit namely DG set was imported by the appellants and therefore, the Asstt. Collector should have not assessed each part on merits; that the findings of the Asstt. Collector that the items were in the nature of individual spares or accessory is not correct; that one condition of the contract for the purchase of DG set was that subject goods are required for 10,000 hours; that for such functioning of the item imported constitute one single DG set. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that impugned order may be set aside and they may be granted refund of the differential duty. 4. Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the licence was issued for one number Diesel Generating set of 4000 kw rating with spare and accessories; that the Bill of Entry No. 5125, dated 17th December, 1983 covers the goods; that the description of the goods in the B/E reads as one number DG set of 4000 KW rating with spares and accessories ; that the invoice dated 28th October, 1983 covering the shipment described the goods as D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record and submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue to be decided by us can be briefly enumerated as under : (1) whether items described in the bill of entry as diesel engine and generator could be classified as diesel generating set under Chapter Heading 85.01(1) or they were to be classified separately as diesel engine and generator under Tariff Heading 84.06 and 85.01(1) respectively. (2) whether the goods imported subsequently could be classified as accessories and spare parts of the diesel generating set and classified under Customs Tariff Heading - 85.01(1) in spite of the fact that they were imported separately and the value of each item were shown individually in the invoices and also that no claim was made in the B/E for their classification under Heading 85.01(1). 6. The contention of the appellants was that the invoice dated 28th Oct., 1983 makes a reference to purchase order dated 1st August, 1983; that according to this purchase order, there was a composite price of Japanese Yen 178,000,000 and if the break up of the value of the purchase order is looked at it would be seen that wherein DG set was supplied at Jap. Yen 116,390,000 the spares and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one lot. It has been indicated that the details are in the attached sheet. In the description of goods it has been indicated as auxiliary equipment for diesel engine, panel, accessories for panel, spare parts. Spare parts have however, been divided as recommended running spare parts for 10,000 hours operation, recommended maintenance and insurance spare parts for 10,000 hours operation and recommended spare parts for electrical equipment of 10,000 hours operation. We also observe that in the invoice, two contract numbers have been given. In the invoice dated 28th Oct., 1983 the contract number given as GES-0430-01 (2F 273) and in invoice dated 30th November, 1983, the contract number has been mentioned as GES-04030-02 (2F 273). We note that copy of these contracts was neither produced by the appellants nor was it available in the evidence on record. 8. On examination of the bill of entry in respect of the goods received under invoice dated 28-10-1983, we find that the description of goods has been given as one number DG set of 4000 kw rating with spares and accessories diesel engine (Eng. Type 16V32G No. 203066 classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 84.06 and generator 5,000 K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equipments, electrical equipments and spare parts. We also find from the purchase order that the value of the order was for Japanese Yen 178,000,000 for supply of DG set of 4000 kw rating with spares and accessories. Accessories, auxiliary equipment and standard maintenance items and spares were indicated in the Annexure `A attached to the purchase order. From the bill of entry No. 12077, dated 30th December, 1983, we find that in the description column, the items have been described as fuel injector, impeller, start valve Cylinder [Safety] Valve etc. and against each item not only the assessable value of the individual item but also the customs tariff heading is given. From the bill of entry running into a number of pages, we do not find any change in the Customs Tariff heading showing that there was any disagreement with the department and the assessee. However, on the last page of the bill of entry, we find that in the column of description of the goods, the goods are mentioned as one DG set of 4000 kw rating with spares and accessories and under this description Torque and Wrench and Timer have been indicated, for Torque and Wrench customs tariff heading has been shown as 82.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also observe that in the bill of entry the classification of the individual items has been indicated in the column of customs tariff heading and there is no claim whatsoever that these spares and accessories should have been assessed as such under the Tariff Heading 85.01(1). In the case of SRF Industrial Fabrics v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 146, this Tribunal had held that in the classification list claiming classification of particular items if approved by the department then the assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved and therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee cannot be maintainable. This Tribunal under similar circumstances in the case of Hyderabad Plywood Ltd. v. Collector reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 62 had held that when the classification claimed by the assessee is approved by the Asstt. Collector, the assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved, therefore, the appeal is not maintain- able. In the absence of any reference that these were spares and accessories and in view of the fact that separate classification under customs tariff heading for individual items was indicated in the bill of entry coupled with fact that in the attached sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
