1985 (1) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eference to Tariff Entry 34A of the CET, the appellants contend that the classification of these components, for the purpose of basic customs duty, has been accepted as 'machinery parts', and as such they could not be treated as 'motor vehicle parts' for the purpose of additional duty. They further plead that they hold licence for the manufacture of 1C engines and not for 'motor vehicles', and they were predominantly manufacturing stationary/industrial type of engines only. 2. The appellants, after notice of hearing was sent to them, conveyed by means of written reply that they placed reliance on the three earlier orders of this Tribunal, and requested that the matter may be decided on the basis of submissions already made by them in the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case of imported goods. 5. Before us, Shri S.C. Rohatgi, DR on the date of hearing, appearing for the respondent, argued to defend these orders but on his attention being drawn to the orders passed by the Tribunal, on which the appellants have placed reliance; Shri Rohatgi did not have much comments to offer except for pointing out that the Bombay High Court judgment with reference to which first order of the Tribunal was recorded did not deal with question of CV duty. We however find on a reference to Order No. 59/83-B, dated 22-2-1983 that the Tribunal has gone by the fact that the Bombay High Court in their judgment recorded in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 557 Kirloskar Cummins Limited v. N.K. Kapoor & Others have clearly gone, in appellants' ow....