2008 (11) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 was denied in respect of X-ray Shoe Inspection System. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of machine in question and claimed the benefit of notification No. 21/02-Cus. at Srl. No. 224 of list....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rea. The contention is that as the machine, in question, is Viewing Box for assessing visible damage and in addition to it also inspect shoes so that there shall not be any nail in shoes, boots, etc. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C. & C.E. v. Lekhraj Jessumal & Sons, reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 162 to submit that new processes and new method....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing visible damage for shoes. In the present case the machine is for inspection of unseen presence of nails and needle at needle work area, by way of X-ray therefore, machine in question is not entitled for benefit of notification. 5. We find that notification provides concessional rate of duty for "Viewing Box for assessing visible damage". In the present case the appellants described the impo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the present case machine imported by the appellants is an X-ray Shoe Inspection System whereas notification provides concessional rate of duty to Viewing Box for assessing visible damage. Therefore, the ratio of the above decision is not applicable on the facts of the present case. Further, we find that CLRI vide letter dated 27-7-2004 opined that viewing box for assessing visible damage did not ....