TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (4) TMI 279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : S. Grover, Vice-President]. - Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, hereinafter referred as BHEL, filed a revision petition before the Government of India against the Order No. S/49-700/77-GS, dated 23rd June, 1977 by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay by which he rejected the refund claim as unsubstantiated. Reference to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the item in question and the machine on which these are meant to be assembled. No response is forthcoming in spite of 10 days notice issued on 8-6-1977. The appeal is therefore rejected as unsubstantiated." 2. For the appellant, Shri R. Subramanian, Senior Manager, appeared and argued the case, and from the Revenue side we had the assistance of Shri K.V. Kunnikrishnan, Jr. D.R. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicable on the end-product, i.e. electric motors in the present case. Accordingly, he held that C.V. duty as on electric motors i.e. 5%+20% special duty equal to 6% would be applicable. He, therefore, allowed partial refund of C.V. duty i.e., 4 per cent. 5. We have already reproduced the Appellate Collector's Order to show the basis of rejection of the Appeal. 6. Shri Subramanian e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resentative, could not controvert that bearings imported and under consideration were other than Ball and Roller Bearings. Though drawing of the machine had been submitted, Shri Subramanian more forcibly pleaded that the duty was leviable on imported items and the concept that it was leviable with relation to the end product was wrong. 8. We have heard the parties and have carefully seen Not....