1998 (7) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. Matter called. None for the respondents. Therefore we have heard the learned JCDR Shri Lakhinder Singh for the revenue in support of its appeal. Briefly stated facts of the case are as follows :- 1. EA oximeter Board 2. 1 EA Display Board 3. 1 EA Y Probe 4. 1 Set case/screw The respondents claim the benefit of Notification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubmitted that the very reading of the invoice makes it clear that the goods are complete equipment because the goods are described as `Hand Held Kits . They are not merely component parts. He submits that it is not a rule of law that Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff would not apply to the Notification at all in all circumstances but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Interpretation Rules to determine the application of the notification or classification of goods but he has questioned the attempts of the Asstt. Collector to determine the meaning of components as stated in Notification No. 66/88 with the help of Interpretation Rules. We observe that this finding of the lower appellate authority is not correct. The Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X