1996 (4) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Learned Counsel had submitted before us that the appellants were manufacturers of hard boards and they had imported plant and machinery in this connection. Later on they were required to import some spare parts and hence a consignment of `wearing plates' was imported by them. It was classified by the Customs House under Heading 73.13 at the time of clearance of the goods. They however claimed reassessment on the ground that the wearing plates imported by them were parts of their pulp making machinery and, therefore, correctly classifiable under 84.31-Cus. with 68 CET. 4. These Headings read as under : Heading No. Sub-Heading No. and description of article  Rate of duty   Prefer  Standard- ential&....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... disallowing their claim. 8. They had filed a petition before the Collector (Appeals), but the same was also rejected on the ground that these are not identifiable as parts of the pulp making machinery. 9. It was their submission that in view of the drawing submitted by them, their contention that the item imported was part of the machinery may be accepted. He would like to mention that after importation, all that is required to be done is merely to bend them at 30o angle in order to fit them in the machinery and use them as spare parts. Hence the request. 10. In response to queries from the Bench, he stated that he was not in a position to show any technical literature or any other material in support of his contention ex....