1997 (12) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)]. -  Appellants in this case have challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta dated 22-8-1990 denying their refund claim of Rs. 40,403.12. 2. M/s. TELCO, Appellants, imported 26 pieces of safety clamps as Excavator spares. The clamps according to the Appellants, are speciall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for lifting or lightly fixing some articles for removing them from place to place and not as recognisable parts of excavator or to be used exclusively by excavator. 3. We have heard Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate who appeared for the appellants and Smt. R. Pant, SDR, who represented the Respondent Collector. 4. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the clamps imported....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r hand, they contended that they were specially designed parts of E.O.T. cranes. 5. The ld. SDR referring to the Cross objection filed by the Department pointed out that the Bill of Entry had described the goods as "Eagle Clamps" and as "Specially designed parts for sole use in Excavator". However, there was no such indication either in the Invoice or in the literature submitted by the App....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the explanatory notes appearing in page 1032 of CCCN. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. On going through the copy of the technical catalogue of the goods at pages 35 to 37 of the Appeal filed by TELCO we note that there is nothing in the said catalogue to indicate that the Eagle clamps imported by the appellants were "specially designed par....