TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce), for the Appellant. Shri S.V. Parelkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. The miscellaneous application is for citing a specific case law. The same is allowed. 2. The dispute in this case relates to coverage of the impugned goods under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus., dated 01-03-2001. List 18A annexed to the said notifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admitted by the importers that such devices would be procured by the importer locally and fitted to the imported machine. Finally, the Adjudicating Dy. Commissioner came to the conclusion that the impugned machine was not covered under the Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. because it had a separate drawing unit and it was also not equipped with the pneumatic suction devices. 3. Commissioner (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as certified by the Department of Electronics wherein it was stated that the machine in question was an automatic wire cutting and stripping machine with additional function of wire twisting. 4. In the present case, it is not established that the impugned goods are principally warping machine with the additional function of drawing. In fact the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with this is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned goods firstly because it has the drawing unit, secondly because it does not have pneumatic suction devices which is required to be imported along with warping machine to qualify for the exemption. He also states that the cited case law is not applicable since drawing unit is not an accessory to the impugned machine as has been held by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. After hearin....