H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. Before the appeals were taken up, the Bench heard the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal No. 1546/86-B1. Considering that this was only a supplementary appeal that arose from the fact that the Appellate Collector passed one order in respect of two orders in original, the Bench condoned the delay and commenced the hearing of the two appeals.

2. The appellants were correct when they said in their revision petition dated 12.10.1981 that the Appellate Collector entered into the aspect of classification which was not a dispute before him for determination. The only dispute was whether end-use certificates were necessary for the purpose of notification No. 99/71-CE.

3. By his order in appeal No. 524/BD-21/81 and 525/BD-22/81 dated 25th April, 1981 the Appellate Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected preferential assessment under notification No. 99/71-CE, because he said the springs were not classifiable under tariff item 34A. It was only those springs classifiable under tariff item 34A used as parts and accessories of motor vehicles which would be exempted from payment of duty under the notification.

4. The manufacturers, M/s. Sarang