Classification under heading 90.27 rejected; unexamined exemption claim remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.

Imported spare parts were held not classifiable under heading 90.27 because the record did not substantiate that the burner control system functioned as an instrument for measuring heat or light, and the assessee's claim on that basis failed. The alternative claim for exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. had not been examined by the appellate authority; since such a claim could be raised at the appellate stage, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported spare parts could be classified under heading 90.27 as parts of an instrument for measuring heat and light; (ii) whether the appellants' claim for benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. required examination.

Issue (i): Whether the imported spare parts could be classified under heading 90.27 as parts of an instrument for measuring heat and light.

Analysis: The appellants sought classification of the imported items under heading 90.27 on the footing that the burner control system measured heat and light. The record did not contain supporting technical literature, and the appellants did not appear to substantiate the claim. The existing material did not establish that the equipment performed the function of measuring quantities of heat or light.

Conclusion: The claim for classification under heading 90.27 was rejected, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants' claim for benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. required examination.

Analysis: The exemption claim was not examined by the appellate authority. The record indicated only a brief reference to the notification, and the appellants were entitled to raise an alternative claim at the appellate stage. In these circumstances, the proper course was to remit the matter for consideration of the exemption issue and to decide it afresh after hearing the appellants.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for de novo consideration of the claim under Notification No. 69/87-Cus., and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification claim failed, but the exemption claim was left for fresh adjudication on remand.

Ratio Decidendi: An alternative exemption claim may be raised at the appellate stage, and where such a claim has not been examined, remand is appropriate for fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

---