1996 (8) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imed concessional rate of duty under S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86, dated 1-3-1986. The Asstt. Collector held that the printed literature did not indicate that these are goods for use in motors of 1.5 KW or above. He rejected the claim. Collector (Appeals) also held that appellants have not produced any evidence that these goods are for use with electric motors with specified rating. Hence, this appeal. 2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate fairly conceeded that it is not possible for them to produce the necessary evidence to substantiate their claim as the goods had already been removed. 3. Ld. D.R. submits that they have to prove in terms of S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86 that the goods are for protect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....III. C/231/88-B2 In this case also the goods are the same, i.e., terminals for use in compressors. The appellants claim for concessional rate of duty under S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86 was rejected by Asstt. Collector on the ground that the printed literature produced does not show that these goods are for use in the motors of 1.5 KW or above. 2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that even though they had made claim before Asstt. Collector for assessment under Notification No. 162/86, their alternate claim for assessment is under Notification No. 155/86 as these goods are component parts of compressors. 3. Ld. D.R. submits that this claim was not made before the Original authority and while seeki....