Per S.L. Peeran : This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. C3/164/98 dated 19.11.1993 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Chennai holding that load-cell are parts and not a complete instrument for the purpose of granting benefit under Notification No. 111/92. He has upheld the grant of benefit of Notification No. 121/92. The revenue has not appealed against the said allowance of the benefit under Notification No. 121/92. The appeal is confined only to rejection of the benefit of Notification No. 111/92. Notification No. 111/92 undisputedly grants benefit only to complete instrument.

2. Counsel Shri S. Anand submits that the load cell by itself is an instrument and benefit should be extended. He relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. New Electronics Industries Ltd. - 1998 (98) ELT 690 wherein load cells are held to be classifiable under Heading 90.31 of the Customs Tariff Act and exempt from auxiliary duty in terms of Notification No. 105/89-Cus dated 1.3.1989.

3. DR on the other hand submits that load cell is a part has been held so by the Special Bench, CEGAT in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. Vs. CC - 1991 (56) ELT 823. He submits that once the Tribunal has held it as a part and not complete instrument by itself therefore the rejection of the claim for the benefit under Notification No. 111/92 is justified. He also submits that the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that load cell is a complete instrument by itself.

4. On a careful consideration we notice that the Tribunal in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. Vs. CC (supra) has held that load cell is a part of weigh-bridge. There is no evidence produced by the appellant to show that load cell is a complete instrument by itself. The notification in question grants benefit only to complete instrument by itself and not a part of the instrument. Therefore in view of lack of any evidence produced and in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. Vs. CC the rejection of claim by the Collector (Appeals) is correct and requires to be upheld. The judgment rendered in the case of CC, Bombay Vs. New Electronics Industries Ltd. (supra) pertains to classification of the item and exempt from auxiliary duty in terms of a different Notification No. 105/89-Cus. dated 1.3.1989 which is not the subject matter of the present case. There is no merit in this appeal and hence the same is rejected.