1. This matter, originally a revision application against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, on being transferred to the Appellate Tribunal has been taken up as an appeal for consideration.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :

3. The appellants M/s. Jyoti Limited had preferred a claim for refund of duty on the ground that the goods in question viz. High Speed Camera - Dynafax Framing Camera with all accessories would fall under Heading 90.08 of the Customs Tariff Act @ 40% + 5% instead of at 100% + 20% under Heading 90.07 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo, Colaba, Bombay, on the basis of the scrutiny of various documents produced, came to the conclusion that the said Dynafax High Speed Camera is correctly classified under CTA 90.07 and not under 90.08. Hence, the refund claim was rejected as being not admissible.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector, the Appellants preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay seeking re-assessment of "High Speed Camera - Dynafax Framing Camera" under Heading 90.08 of the CTA. The Appellate Collector in the light of the facts and records pertaining to the case and after taking into account the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, came to the conclusion that the item in question would not merit assessment under Heading 90.08 of the CTA. The reason adopted by the Appellate Collector in arriving at the said conclusion was on the following lines. Though from the documents produced it appeared to the appellate Collector that the functioning of the Dynafax-350 Camera was similar to the cinematographic camera, nevertheless two factors compelled him to come to the conclusion that the item would not merit assessment under the Heading 90.08 of the CTA as claimed by the appellant. The first factor which weighed with the Appellate Collector was the relatively short length of the film being handled by the Dynafax Camera. Secondly, constructional features of the Camera, according to him, would not lend the same to be adapted as a cinematographic camera. This, in the opinion of the Appellate Collector was borne out from the range of the applications spelled out in the catalogue, including application for ballistics, detonations, gas combustions etc. Though high recording rates were involved, nowhere the catalogue mentioned its use as for cinematographic purposes. Since the Heading 90.08 of the CTA was restricted to cinematographic camera only, he rejected the appeal.

5. In the appeal, the appellants have contested the logic of the reasoning given by the Appellate Collector in negativing their claim for re-assessment under the Heading 90.08 of CTA.

6. Shri Hathi, learned counsel for the appellant argued at great length on the various constructional and functional aspects of the Dynafax High Speed Camera and in doing so he relied upon the catalogues, extracts from which had been made available to the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the various diagrams and charts by drawing pointed attention to some of the important features which would undoubtedly establish the item in question as cinematographic camera. In the course of his arguments, the counsel stated that though the basic elements of a cine camera and those of a still camera are similar, yet in cinematograph the object is to produce a moving picture of the whole event. An important part of the cinematographic camera is the film transport system. In addition to the film transport system in cine camera, there is a lens, film gate etc. So far as recording cameras are concerned, it was submitted that generally they do not have any shutter, the film moving continuously behind the lens. The learned counsel also explained the operation of the Dynafax High Speed Framing Camera with reference to the various parts such as Scrapping shutter, Rotating mirror etc. In other words, the main th