1988 (1) TMI 213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri J. Banerjee, Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order per: G. P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. - The question for decision in this appeal, originally initiated by issuing the Review Show Cause Notice by the Govt. of India by virtue of powers vested in them under erstwhile Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is whether the Steam Presses with Portable Boilers and Ironing & Cleaning Tables importe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rrectly classifiable under heading 80.40(1), CTA 1975 and that they were not chargeable to c.v.d. The respondent did not claim re-assessment of spares. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim vide his order dated 19.9.1980 and upheld the original assessment. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred their appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs who vide his order dated 16.1.1981 allowed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that the machinery, being industrial and not domestic, fell under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 33C. 3. We have heard Shri D. K. Saha, learned JDR and Shri J. Banerjee, Ld. counsel for the respondent. 4. Shri D. K. Saha, learned JDR at the outset submitted that it is a covered case in favour of the department in as much as it was held by this Tribunal in the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., supra cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Kerala High Court after stating that the jurisdiction exercised by the Govt. of India under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 being revisional in character, it is not expected to treat the proceedings as an appeal and substitute its own conclusions on questions of facts in place of those arrived at by the subordinat....