Harish Chander, Member (J)

1. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd., Bombay had filed a Revision Application to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from order in appeal No. S/49-294/80R dated 31-3-1980 passed by Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The said Revision Application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants had imported linear capstan, overhead traverse shaftless take up Ex.s.s. Egidia vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 1469 dated 7-6-79. The appellant had claimed its assessment at concessional rate of duty in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 40-Cus/78 dated 1-3-1978 as amended from time to time. The learned Assistant Collector had rejected the refund claim of the appellant on the ground that Serial No. 14 of the table covers "plastic extruder above 150mm screw diameter". The notification covers only complete plastic extruder and does not cover parts and/or accessories, parts/accessories if not charged separately and imported along with the main equipment worth chargeable at the same rate of duty as the main equipment. He had further observed that the goods were imported separately and not with the plastic extruder and when the goods were imported separately, the same were not eligible for concessional assessment under Notification No. 40-Cus/78. He had rejected the claim. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant had filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Collector of Customs. The Appellate Collector of Customs had held that the benefit of the notification could not be extended to other accessories which were actually independent machines having their own functions and had rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Shri H.K. Kochhar, the learned Advocate has appealed on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated the facts and the contentions made in the Revision Application. He has pleaded that the appellant had imported linear capstan, overhead traverse shaftless take up vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 1469 dated 7-6-79. He has referred to item Nos. 3 and 5 of the invoice. Shri Kochhar has pleaded that the goods were classified and assessed to Customs Duty under Heading 84.45/48. He has pleaded that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 40-Cus/78 dated 1-3-78 and has referred to S.No. 14 of the notification. He has also referred to the invoice and has pleaded that the invoice is common; and extruder is entitled to the benefit of the notification and not parts. He has referred to an earlier order of the Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Order No. 440-B/84 dated 1-5-84. In that case the Tribunal had accepted the appeal of the appellant. Shri kochhar stated that the appellant does not possess the catalogue. He has referred to the opinion of the D.G.T.D. where the D.G.T.D. has opined that 200mm extruder along with accessories like pay-off, capstan, in line voltage tester, take-up unit forms a complete extrusion line. It is understood that Custom has held up the consignment as in the policy the word extruder has been mentioned . An extruder is useful for production only when the accessories mentioned above are also there as otherwise the extruder is of no use and it cannot be used for production. Therefore the intention of putting extruder of above 150mm in OGL Scheme for I.T.C. purpose seems to permit importation of complete extrusion line. Even otherwise these extruders of 200mm along with its accessories do not have indigenous angle and in case the firm would have approached the Government, they could have got clearance. Shri Kochhar states that the above opinion of the DGTD fully supports the appellant's case. In support of his arguments he has also referred to earlier judgm