1996 (7) TMI 222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... DR, for the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The appellants imported bearings and bushings which were assessed to duty under Heading 84.62(2). Thereafter, the appellants filed a refund claim in respect of two bushes claiming that they were tractor parts and merited classification under Heading 87.04/06. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. The Collector....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions might be the same. He referred to the catalogue showing the details of the impugned goods and claimed that the catalogue described the goods as tractor bushes. 3. Shri Mohd Ali, learned DR representing the Revenue, claimed that the catalogue cited was that of a manufacturer whereas the invoice shows that the goods were purchased from traders. He further claimed that bushes are not men....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. The Supreme Court on examination of this has observed as under : "It has been held by the Appellate Tribunal and it is also the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that bushings and bearings are identical articles. It seems that the appellate Tribunal was influenced by the fact that the functions of the bushings and bea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claim is not correct. He had submitted that since bushes are not referred to in the Tariff by their nomenclature, they had to fall under the same heading as bearings. 6.  In view of the findings of the Supreme Court referred to above, these goods would have to be included in the heading as 'parts' of those articles in which they would be used. In the cited case, the issue was whether the b....