Per S.L. Peeran :

This appeal arises from rejection of refund application of the importer.

2. The appellants are manufacturer of paper. They state that they generate Electricity for captive consumption, through imported Turbines installed in the factory. As they required spare parts, as not being available indegenously, they were getting it manufactured in U.K. as per the drawings and imported the same as per proper licence.

3. On landing on 13.9.83, the spares had been valued at Rs. 1,09,401/- and an import customs duty of Rs. 1,04,596.07 has been levied as per details given below:

There is no dispute in this appeal pertaining to item (4) above.

4. It is the appellant's case that all the individuals spares are specially designed and intended to suit and use in their mills and therefore, they applied for reclassification of the goods under Chapter heading 84.03 and for refund of excess customs duty of Rs. 45519.53. It was their further plea before the Asstt. Collector that the goods by their very nature are spares for turbines, and are not assessable under any other tariff item other than item 84.03 of the Customs Tariff. The Asstt. Collector held that as the items have been invoiced separately and declared as such in the Bill of Entry as 'spares', therefore the items are required to be assessed as per their merits. He also held that in absence of manufacturer's catalogue "the reassessment of these items as the material furnished in the form of drawing cannot be considered".

5. The ld. Collector also held that they had not produced any authentic evidence to show that the subject goods constituted sub-assemblies.

6. We have heard ld. Advocate Shri K. Narasimhan for the appellant and Shri Mohammad Ali, ld. JDR for the Revenue. The ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants had got the goods imported based on the drawings supplied by them which are spares to be specifically used in the turbine and therefore, there was as question of producing any catalogue of the supplier. It is his case that the goods are made as per the drawings of the manufacturer's certificate and hence they are required to be considered as sub-assembly of valves which is a part of turbine. He submitted that the classification of Piston valves under heading 84.61 (1) cannot be done, when there is a specific headings for valves under heading 84.61 (2). In this connection, he also brought to our notice the judgement of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. CC as reported in 1995 (11) RLT 185 (T) = 1995 (80) ELT 346, wherein the Tribunal has taken a view after examining the catalogue and literature that valves are to be classified under heading 84.61 (2). He submitted that his original claim continues to be under Tariff Item No. 84.03 as parts of turbine as there is no specific heading for parts and therefore, valves and its sub-assembly being parts of the turbine, they are rightly classifiable under heading 84.03. However, the Tribunal has taken a view that the valves are classifiable under 84.61 (2) and the rate of duty being 40% for both the items, he would accept the Tribunal's judgement, are classifiable under 84.61 (2) with consequential relief in this item. He submitted that the classification of sleeves spring holders under heading 73.33/40 (1) as "other articles of iron & steel" is not an appropriate classification as the item is not a general purpose article of iron & steel but it is a sub-assembly of valves to be used as part in the turbine. He also submitted that the classification of sleeves under item 73.32 under the heading writing bills and notes (including parts ends is not an ap