9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (J)]. Appellants in this case have challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta dated 22-8-1990 denying their refund claim of Rs. 40,403.12. 2. M/s. TELCO, Appellants, imported 26 pieces of safety clamps as Excavator spares. The clamps according to the Appellants, are specially designed parts of lifting equipment by E.O.T. cranes. There was disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace to place and not as recognisable parts of excavator or to be used exclusively by excavator. 3. We have heard Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate who appeared for the appellants and Smt. R. Pant, SDR, who represented the Respondent Collector. 4. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the clamps imported by them were of different models with various sizes and were parts solely designe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The ld. SDR referring to the Cross objection filed by the Department pointed out that the Bill of Entry had described the goods as Eagle Clamps and as Specially designed parts for sole use in Excavator . However, there was no such indication either in the Invoice or in the literature submitted by the Appellants. She drew attention to the catalogue submitted by the Appellants which read as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submissions made on behalf of both the parties. On going through the copy of the technical catalogue of the goods at pages 35 to 37 of the Appeal filed by TELCO we note that there is nothing in the said catalogue to indicate that the Eagle clamps imported by the appellants were specially designed parts for sole use in Excavators as claimed by them in the Bill of Entry. We have also gone throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
