JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-This appeal by special leave is in challenge of an order passed by the Government of India, in exercise of their revisional power under the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act ). As per the impugned order Government annulled the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs in favour of the appellant on 6.12.1978.

2. Facts are, in brief, these:

Appellant firm has a factory for manufacturing sewing machines and accessories at Faridabad, with an approved capacity for making both domestic as well as industrial sewing machines. Appellate imports components for manufacturing such sewing machines from foreign suppliers. In October, 1977, appellant imported components of industrial sewing machines - "rotating hooks complete with bobbin case", some of which required 1/3 H.P. and the others required 1/2 H.P. for their operation. According to appellant such imported components were dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent to customs duty as per item 84.41 (1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule, and hence appellant was paying customs duty in accordance with it. But the Assistant Collector of Customs (Foreign Post), New Delhi charged higher duty by treating those goods as components for domestic sewing machines as prescribed under clause (2) of heading 84.2 of the Schedule. Appellant paid the higher duty under protest and got the goods released and later applied for refund of the excess amount paid (i.e.Rs. 1,78,208/-). The Assistant Collector rejected the application reiterating that the goods imported were components for domestic sewing machines.

3. Appellant then filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs who allowed the appeal holding that the goods imported were not for domestic sewing machines and as such they were classifiable under item 84.41(1) of the Schedule. Thus the appellant became entitled to refund of the amount paid in excess. But appellant failed to get the refund applied for, inspite of pursuing the applications filed for that purpose. So a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Delhi for appropriate directions. Notice was served on the Central Government. They proposed to review the order for which a notice was given to the appellant to show cause why it should not be reviewed. Appellant submitted its detailed reply. Central Government after hearing the appellant passed the impugned order.

4. Appellate Collector concurred with the importer s stand that the components were intended for industrial sewing machines on the strength of a variety of reasons and on its own satisfaction when the difference was demonstrated before him, during the time of hearing. He noticed that "the rotating hook in the industrial machine had higher speed than the domestic sewing machine and if the rotating pin of the industrial sewing machines were to be attached to the domestic sewing machine, it would not withstand the speed and would break." Appellate Collector, therefore, was convinced that the hooks imported by the appellant were not for domestic sewing machines and were "solely and principally for use in machines operated with more than 1/4 H.P. and as such are classifiable under ICT 84.41(1)".

5. Government of India differed from the above conclusion, mainly on the premises that (1) "the rotating hooks complete with bobbin case" find their use in domestic as well as other sewing machines, but their principal use lies in domestic sewing machines, (2) the term sewing machine should have been understood in the manner it is understood in international market/trade market/trade for purposes of customs classification, and (3) the corresponding heading in the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature (BTN) covers two types or sewing machines, namely, (a) ordinary sewing machines used in homes or by tailors or dress-makers etc., (b) special machines which can be used only for certain other kinds of sewing (as enumerated therein).

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Government of India h