9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Heading 90.28(4) read with 90.16(1) at the rate of 60% (Basic) plus 15% (auxiliary) plus 8% (CD). The appellants cleared the goods on payment of the duty as assessed and lodged two claims for refund of the duty charged in excess, contending that the gauges in question were checking instruments correctly assessable under Heading No. 90.28(4) read with 90.16(2) on which the rate of duty applicable was 40% (Basic) plus 5% (auxiliary) plus 8% (CVD). In support of their contention, the appellants furnished along with their refund claims a copy of the catalogue of the goods. The appellants also contended that even while assessing the goods as electrical measuring instruments under Heading No. 90.28(4) read with 90.16(1), the benefit of the conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntions of the appellants and rejected the appeal. 2. When the matter was called none was present for the appellants who, by their letter dated 3-2-1995, have requested for decision on merits. We have heard learned Senior Departmental Representative Shri K.K. Jha who fairly submits that the alternative prayer in the appeal that the goods be extended the benefit of exemption under Notification 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 finds support in a Bombay High Court decision in the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 557 (Bom.). We have perused the judgment. There also the claim was for the exemption under Notification No. 172-Cus., dated 8-8-1977 given under Heading 85.15 Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of exemption notification. In these circumstances, the decision of the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the Central Government cannot be sustained. It is required to be stated that identical orders were passed in respect of another bill of entry filed by the appellants and Writ Petition was filed to cover both the bills of entries."
3. The ratio of the above judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case, and, applying it, we hold that the goods imported in this case are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. The appeals are accordingly allowed granting the alternative prayer for such exemption. The operative portion of the order was announced in Court. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
