Strict proof of qualifying machine required for customs concession; clarificatory amendment did not cure failure to establish eligibility.

Concessional customs duty under Notification No. 35/79-Cus. was available only on strict proof that the imported bearings were meant for a machine specifically covered by one of the notification's listed headings. The later Notification No. 179-Cus. was treated as clarificatory, but it did not remove the importer's burden to establish that foundational requirement. As the record did not show that the goods were for any particular qualifying machine, eligibility was not proved and the concessional claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to concession under Notification No. 35/79-Cus. dated 15-2-1979, as amended, in respect of imported bearings said to be required for machinery falling under Tariff Item 84.62.

Analysis: The notification could be availed of only if the importer pleaded and proved that the parts imported were for a machine specifically covered by one of the headings enumerated in the notification. The subsequent Notification No. 179-Cus. dated 4-9-1980 was treated as clarificatory, but that did not dispense with the requirement of establishing that the relevant machine itself fell within a specified heading. The record did not show that the imported bearings were meant for any particular machine answering that description.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to establish eligibility to the concession and the claim was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Concessional customs benefit was unavailable on the facts proved, and the departmental rejection of reassessment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An importer seeking exemption or concessional duty under a notification must strictly prove that the goods are for a machine specifically covered by the notification, and a clarificatory amendment does not cure failure to establish that foundational requirement.

---