9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. All these appeals were head together and are being disposed off through this common order. I. C/209/88-B2 The appellants imported galssmatic terminals for use in compressors of 230W. They claimed concessional rate of duty under S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86, dated 1-3-1986. The Asstt. Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to that effect, the appeal deserves to be rejected. 4. Considered. It was fairly conceded by the ld. Advocate that since goods had already been removed they are not in a position to produce evidence in support of their claim. Onus to prove exemption is always on the claimant. In view of this, we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order. II. C/2175/88-B2 1. In case of Appeal No. 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in case of Appeal No. 209, we reject this appeal also and uphold the impugned order. III. C/231/88-B2 In this case also the goods are the same, i.e., terminals for use in compressors. The appellants claim for concessional rate of duty under S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86 was rejected by Asstt. Collector on the ground that the printed literature produced does not show that these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te submitted that goods are used in manufacture of compressors which admittedly fall under Tariff Heading 84.14. We, however, find that this claim was never made before the Asstt. Collector. This claim introduced a new set of facts in that while claim made under Notification No. 162/86 required to find out whether goods were meant for protecting electric circuits of making connections to or in ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Tariff Item, Notification, etc. can be corrected so long as the nature and the substance of the claim does not change. 4.2. Even in case of Premier Tyres Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madras - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 419 cited by the ld. Advocate himself, it was held that the claim must not introduce a new cause of action or raise a different case and does not work injustice to the other side. 5. Since in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
