1985 (2) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in terms of Notification No. 395/76, dated 2-8-1976. The 12 cases of crankshafts, stated to be essential parts of Internal Combustion Piston Engines, and imported for final application in the same, were assessed to duty under Tariff Item No. 84.63 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA for short). The importers applied for refund subsequently, claiming that the imported goods were to go, for purposes of classification, to Tariff Item No. 84.06 of the CTA, and duty assessed accordingly. They also claimed benefit of Notification No. 395/76. 2. This claim was rejected by Assistant Collector by order dated 6-5-1977 on the view that, apart from the fact that the party had not clarified the final application of Internal Combustion Engines; otherwis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he parts themselves do not have to go to the same heading. They contend that it is on this interpretation that number of similar claims have been allowed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, whereas this claim was erroneously rejected. 5. During the hearing before us, Shri M.R. Karkhanis, Consultant, appeared for the appellants. The respondent was represented by Shri S.C. Rohatgi, DR. Shri Karkhanis, at the outset, invited our attention to two decisions of the Government of India involving identical issue, laying down that benefit of Notification No. 395-Cus./76 is not to be confined only to those parts which are themselves classifiable under Heading 84.06 of the CTA and that it could be extended to all parts which are shown to be meant ....