I.J. Rao, Member (T)

1. The appellants imported, under a Bill of Entry No. 1416 dated 24.2.83, two 'Automatic Nut Making Machines Comprising one Blanking Press REMP 16N and one Finishing Press KP-16 & Accessories, etc." The goods were assessed provisionally and allowed clearance against a bond. The benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus was extended. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants threatening the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus. After due process, which included personal hearing to the appellants, the Assistant Collector held that the Blanking Press (BP for short) would not be entitled to the concessional assessment under Notification No. 40/78-Cus. because the product manufactured by it is not a 'Nut'. Benefit of the Notification was extended to the Finishing Press because the product manufactured by it was considered to be a 'Nut' (without threading).

2. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector rejected the appeal observing as follows:-

"I have carefully considered the submission of the appellants both written and oral, as well as the records of the case. The dispute in this case is regarding applicability or otherwise of the benefit . of Notification No. 40 Cus. dated 1.3.78 to the goods imported. The appellants have pleaded that they had imported two machines - one blanking press and one finishing press - both of which are essentially required in the manufacture of nuts for installation in their own factory as multi-station, nut making machines. They have further explained that these two machines, between themselves work seven stages from raw material stage to the finishing blank stage automatically in their nut making unit while the blanking press works the first five stages, the finishing press works the final two stages. But contrary to their expectation the blanking press-was not allowed the benefit of Notification No. 40 Cus. dated 1.3.78 which inter-alia' is specific for multi-station Nut making machine. The adjudicating authority has, however, allowed the benefit of the said Notification 40/78 on the finishing press. But the blanking press has been denied the benefit on the ground that the blanking press merely produces blanks and, therefore, cannot be considered as a nut making machine. The appellants have contested the finding of the adjudicating authority by stating that since both the machines are essential for manufacture of nuts automatically and since both are complimentary to each other, both should get the benefit meant for multi-station Nut making machine. In support of their contention the appellants have also referred to a clarification by D.G.T.D. certifying that for the purpose of licensing both the machines are to be treated at par.

The certificate by D.G.T.D. cannot have any bearing on whether the goods imported would attract the benefits of a concessional notification or not. Though there is some prima facie merit in 'the appellants' contention that both the machines together go to make a complete multi-station automatic nut making machine, I am unable to accept their claim that for considering the benefit of notification to be allowed to certain goods also this has to be guiding factor. On the other hand, I find that in this case two machines of different functions were involved whereas the benefit of the Notification No. 40/78 is meant for a nut making machine only. Since both the machines have different functions from one another, only one machine can be logically held to produce nuts/finished blanks. Thus logically again only one machine may be entitled to the benefit of the notification in question. In view of the above, I am unable to find any fault with the findings of the adjudicating authority and to interfere with the order-in-original.

The appeal fails and is rejected."

Hence the present appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants recalled the facts of the matter and submitted