1987 (5) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y and clearance of the goods, the appellants claimed that the correct classification was under Heading 84.64 and that consequential refund of duty be granted to them. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector by an Order dated 3-8-1982 which we cannot describe even as cryptic - it can hardly be called an adjudication order. It reads: "on examination of the claim, it is found that the goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 68.01/16(1), the claims, therefore, untenable". This, in spite of the appellants having referred to order-in-appeal No. 2489/78 passed by the Appellate Collector, as noted by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector seems to have been oblivious to the fact that he was sitting as a quasi-judici....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....N.C. Sogani, Consultant for the appellants and Shri Raj Hans, Departmental Representative for the respondent. 4. Shri Sogani submits that the goods are oil seals as noted by the Collector (Appeals) in his order and are composed of more than one material, though asbestos may be the main ingredient. Interpretative Rule 3(a) applies in the instant case and not Rule 3(b) as stated by the Collector. The subject goods are parts of internal combustion engines as shown by the Perkins Catalogue. Hence Heading 84.65 ("Machinery parts,....... not falling within any other Heading in this chapter") is more specific than Heading 68.01/16(1). Even if Rule 3(b) is held to by applicable, the essential character of the oil seal (prevention of oil leakage)....