9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants used the impugned machines mainly for precision boring and micro boring operation; that the machine was essentially used for Jig Boring of top and bottom plates of insert bushes for press tools; that the machine was also used for Jig Boring of punch plates, die plates and strippers; that the machine was cleared on payment of duty by Bombay Customs classifying the same under Heading No. 84.45/48 and extending the benefit of Notification No. 40/78; that under the impugned Order, the Collector has held that the imported machine was not Jig Boring machine and was not covered by OGL as well as Notification No. 40/78-Cus; that parts imported by them are assessable on their own merits and not along with machines and that the appellants had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hines are different from Jig Boring Machines. Finally, he submitted that in case of Sukeshan Equipments Pvt. Ltd., the Appellate Tribunal had held that the machines imported by them was not Jig Boring Machines; that when the matter came up in appeal before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7972/95 [2000 (117) E.L.T. A177], the Court with the consent of both the sides referred the matter to an expert who should examine the machine provided that he was satisfied that it was in the form in which it was imported and with the same features, subject to ordinary wear and tear over the last six years, and that if he was then of the opinion that the machines was a Jig Boring Machine, that would be acceptable to the Respondents and that if he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this matter. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to get the examination carried out by an expert to be nominated by the Central Machine Tool Institute Bangalore, provided the machine is in the form in which it was imported and with the same features subject to ordinary wear and tear over the period since it was imported. The opinion given by the expert, so nominated will be binding on both the sides. As the main issue is being remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, we are not considering the other question of assessment of parts imported by the Appellants and whether they had resorted to under-valuation. These points are left to the Commissioner for decision while adjudicating the matter af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
